Donald Trump created the biggest republican voter turnout in history.
When the oligarchs, leftists, whomever attack Trump, they are attacking the voter.
The voter is not qualified to vote, apparently. The psychop failed on these people and they need to be ‘re-educated’.

The left paints Trump as a facist because they have been drumming up the holocaust narrative as a political weapon for decades (not before the ’50s though, because the AJC actually mocked people who claimed a holocaust as ‘fools falling for Soviet Propaganda’ at that time * {AJC was trying to appear very anti-commie back then} back then).

The authoritarian narrative, as proclaimed in Adorno’s ‘Authoritarian Personality’ has been severely de-constructed by a number of scholars, including the fierce attack by Jewish Paleo-conservative Paul Gottfried in several of his works**. Essentially, according to this ridiculous book, anyone who is Christian, does not rebel against their parents, and who is not sexually liberated is a FACIST. The whole authoritarian narrative is intellectually bankrupt.

In all truth, those of us on the right are more worried that Trump might be too pro-Israel and accommodating to the left. Hardly facist.

One has to realize that the fields of communication and the media were literally swamped after WWII by former OSS and other psychological operatives***. The mass media is one large psychological operation designed to confuse you and keep the Globalist Oligarchy in power.

So relax. You’re better off with Trump. Safer, better chance for having a decent economy, a manufacturing base, and the continued protective institutions first and second amendment. You will lose all this if the democrats get in.

The medium is the message: “7-in-10-americans” piece isn’t about Trump– it’s about the people taking the poll.

Trump is engaged in performance art. Trump is a performer, standing outside the usual order of things that these poll participants use to interpret what he is saying to them. But, Trump is speaking in a different language because he is not a part of their condition.

Trump is trying to help people see things from a different perspective– his perspective. Many people will not at first understand and many will fight against it. But, they find it hard to ignore because it so inextricably bound to the culture in which they live, at a specific point in time and in a particular context that requires them to act.

For many, life lacks meaning. Voting for Trump’s opponent is an empty joke. But, that’s what many will do and there’s your poll: 47%. They’re going to vote for Clinton or whomever is put in her place by the establishment. The presidential vote in November is not about them but about the other 53%.

Gee Danny, a story in the WP, which has been anti-Trump from the start, along with most of the rest of the MSM, about Trump’s negative rating. An insightful reader might stop and wonder if this means their campaign against Trump is showing success. You jump on it to show us your opinion must be on target.

Just provided the link TimG56. Didn’t conduct the poll. Got anything to compare showing the poll is inaccurate? Your choice of source is fine. Or, alternatively, you can veil an ad hom in the form of suggesting I was less than insightful. Your choice.

I don’t pay much attention to polls anymore. I’ve learned enough to know that one needs detailed information on how the questions were structured and the polling audience selected before analyzing their results. Then there is the fact I do not base my opinions on polls. I’d go further and say I’d question the intelligence of anyone who based their vote on polling results.

And you did more than just provide the link. Does this ring a bell?

“Apparently I’m not the only one who perceives Mr. Trump’s behavior as a concern”

No objection to you voicing your opinion. Just don’t cloak it.

Might I recommend you read the Federalist article Judith links to above? Or the Scott Adams pieces Dave Springer has linked to? If you are relying on the WP and NYT and the major news outlets for your information on Trump, then you are seeing a picture being painted that is 90% negative. So you have two choices. Accept that Trump is the worse candidate ever and all the people who voted for him are low intelligence (i.e. the MSM viewpoint) or at least consider there is more to the man then they want you to realize and all those voters and supporters are more in touch with what matters than the people who want to be patted on the head by the 1%.

TimG56,
I don’t ‘rely’ on polls either. They are expressions of opinions of others subject to ‘framing’ by the pollsters (hence the reference to the links for the questions and methods).

I’d prefer to rely on the policies of the candidates but Trump is more than vague about his. Should Trump improve his communication then maybe, (just maybe) my evaluation might change. I’ve asked others (you included) for detail and get little to none. It’s not my evaluation that others are ‘low information’. That comes from those I’ve asked for detail who state it’s not there. My attempt is to become a greater information voter. So far there has been little success though no fault of mine.

From Federalist:
“Oakeshott would’ve seen nothing wrong in Trump’s appeals to his own experience making deals as a substitute for a policy agenda, and he would’ve most likely thought Trump’s self-described brains and savvy were simply a means of advertising wisdom and prudence through more earthy language.”

Substitute for policy agenda. Okay. That’s clear and concise.

Then
“People ask [Trump] something like ‘How would you fix Medicare?’, and he gives some vapid answer like ‘There are tremendous problems with Medicare, but I’m going to hire the best people. I know all of the best doctors and health care executives, and we’re going to cut some amazing deals and have the best Medicare in the world.’[…]

As far as Mr. Adams, I’m not much for seeking out cartoonists as fonts of political knowledge but what the heck:” If you have been paying attention, even a little bit, you know that Donald Trump will become the Republican nominee. And he got here by ignoring facts, according to fact-checkers. Nor has he offered the level of policy details that pundits and voters alike say they want.” (Keep in mind, these are the words from the source that YOU wished me to seek).

Interesting that! What else ya got Tim? I’d really appreciate ‘policy details’. That you chose to rely on faith is fully acceptable and I support you. That you deny my desire for something a bit more substantial does not seem as supportive.

““Trump is unexpectedly increasing my enthusiasm for Hillary,” adds retired general Merrill McPeak, who, like Welsh, served on the Joint Chiefs as the Air Force chief of staff. “What he is saying is not based on facts: it’s based on immaturity, bad judgment and ignorance, and I think it’s going to be hard for people in uniform who are thoughtful about this, to vote for him.”

Hate to break this to you Danny, but I don’t live to see your words of wisdom. At 6 yesterday evening I was fixing dinner. At 10 I was finishing up a movie with my wife. Reading comments on this blog wasn’t anywhere close to being on my mind, let alone being curious what you had to say.

You’re the one claiming to just trying to become informed. Not my job to provide you with an in depth reading list. And for someone who is trying become informed, you do a very good job of providing what pretty much looks like an already formed opinion.

TimG56,
Hope din-din was good and that you enjoyed the movie (and popcorn).

Noted this: “I haven’t advocated surveillance of anyone. Nor have you seen me criticizing the FBI for not stopping Mateen before he acted. I strongly believe in civil rights. I also know that the biggest protection of those rights is the right to own firearms.”

Question Tim. Where do you stand on Trumps discussion of ‘infringing’ on the 2nd amendment rights of folks who are on a no fly list? Not convicted or even accused of an actual crime, but just on the list? For example, what if their name was say……….TimG56, or maybe Danny Thomas? Placed in error on the list, but disallowed none the less. Thoughts?

Follow up. Do you consider that felons who are disallowed their 2nd amendment rights are being ‘infringed’ upon?

Personally, being a reasonable person, my mind is subject to change based on information. My opinion of Trump is that he has not provided sufficient information to be awarded my vote at this time. I have not determined (you do know the definition of assumption, correct?) whom I will consider in alternate (I may write in Jon Huntsman to provide detail). Are you equally subject to a change of mind should Trump ‘infringe’ 2nd amendment considering you stated: “biggest protection of those rights is the right to own firearms.”? What if fit turns out Trump U (why won’t he allow the deposition to be aired……….sounds like Clinton’s wiggling on e-mails don’t it?) was a fraudulent operation? What if his tax records show something nefarious (just a what if)? Have you even considered these concerns?

The “no fly” list shouldn’t exist. It is a list of suspected terrorists and in typical Washington fashion it became a warm and fuzzy pacifier for the public, much like McCarthy’s black list. However, if someone is a suspected terrorist, any place that requires proper identification should provide a lead for authorities, including gun purchase background check. I believe the DOJ just overruled the FBI on that point.

Hi Capt.
From my reading there are supposedly some 700,000 names on the list of which ‘only’ 10,000 are reportedly American citizens. It’s my understanding that Trump wishes to meet with NRA reps to discuss that those on the list would be disallowed firearms purchases. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/743078235408195584http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/donald-trump-nra-meeting/
This seems to be a scenario where out of 10,000 an error could occur depriving those of their 2nd amendment rights. But would one be too many?
(Guilty until proven innocent?)
I’ve not verified numbers but found this also: “So what does it mean to be among the 1 million names the government keeps in an effort to track terrorists and prevent attacks? Who gets on the list and how do they get off of it? The lists have been controversial and the subject of lawsuits by people who are targeted and find it difficult to challenge why are on a list.”http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/14/no-fly-list/85867624/

The zeitgeist of the country has certainly changed over the 200+ years of its existence. People were a lot more self-sufficient in the past. If you heard a noise outside you didn’t call the police. There was no phone. No police. Now, people look to government to rock their cradles and save them from the grave.

Complex systems advance toward their positive feedback loops. Using the treasury and national credit to buy voter blocks wholesale began with Franklin Roosevelt to “save the country” from collapse. It had debatable economic benefit but the political affect was to make Uncle Sam the ultimate protector, a rich uncle to go to when chips are down. Since then the Democrats have been perpetually promising a “New Deal,” always financed by the children of the future, catering compassionately to Dem voters. All the while those needing and wanting the rich uncle’s assistance grows.

The Social Security Act was a Ponzi scheme which is now coming ripe. What is less realized is the federal government in the 1950s created the seeds for the health care gap by giving tax-free status to employer based healthcare. Self-employed or unemployed Individuals wanting insurance had a higher rate because no groups would form in a disadvantaged financial position, thus they had to buy plans with after-tax dollars in individual plans. Nobody likes to pay above market, thus the only buyers were in poor health, making individual plans expensive. The market was corrupted by a rich uncle.

If there were a dozen Kaiser type health foundations competing to offer health plans, eliminating the cost of all other bureaucracy and middle-men, the cost would be half and the service would be better.

Looking for past political forethought (of any party) motivated purely by benefited posterity one must literally go back to George Washington. For those who believe that Barack and Michelle and Bill and Hillary are most concerned about LGBT rights or Green justice you are just easy marks. You will get much more by building a consensus of the whole electorate than putting faith in people you know are just schmoozing you and voting groups to gain a majority of “believers.”

Would that be because the Republican Presidents had to fix the mess left by the Democrats?

Geez, it’s almost like I didn’t see that one coming. But thanks for recognizing that gummint spending can be a valid way to fix messes.

How is Obama doing?

So many metrics for me to cherry pick. Let’s see. Under Obama’s watch:

1) unemployment rate fell steadily from 10% to 5%. You will of course argue that folk have given up looking for work in favor of sucking on the gummit tit. You will also likely not want to remember that he inherited the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and an 8% unemployment rate from his predecessor. I dunno, is W. Bush considered a RINO these days, and therefore doesn’t count?

2) Inflation has pretty much stayed under 2% for Obama’s entire term. The average has been 1.6%, whereas under Bush it was 2.2%. You will likely argue that this isn’t a Good Thing because …

3) … real GDP growth rate has only averaged 2.1% under Obama, which is the second lowest for any president since the hapless Herbert Hoover administration. He was a Republican wasn’t he? Yes, yes he was. Lowest since Hoover’s -7.3% (yes, that’s a minus sign) was none other than … W. Bush again … at 1.6%. But Dubya wasn’t really a Republican, right? So that doesn’t count.

4) Everyone was forced to buy health insurance or else pay a tax penalty. No wait, that’s a bad example. How can I spin this. Hmmm. Oh … by law, now nobody can be turned down for health insurance. Er … that’s not good either since nobody got to keep their plan. Besides, not having healthcare is supposed to be motivation to get one’s posterior off the couch and look for work. Or something.

5) He hasn’t invaded any sovereign countries on flimsy intelligence to protect our freedoms. Well unless you count Pakistan, but he had the good sense to GTFO once bin Laden was safely tucked away in a body bag. Oh sure, ok, there’s Libya, but again we didn’t linger once the main target was eliminated. Less popular was his decision to give Syria a miss after al-Assad crossed the Red Line.

Mixed bag, Obama. Undelivered on some over-promises … but I guess that’s most politicians. I’ll probably miss him, if only for all the stupid sh!t he did NOT do.

I must admit, I do have an uncontrollable case of the giggles at the moment.

I think we know from his hisory of comments on this forum that he lives in a fact-free world, being completely blinded to factual reality by his partisanship and other biases.

You’re killing me, Smalls. Yes, that plot is an almost accurate representation of how Obama *was* doing. In his first term. Unfortunately for your argument, whoever did that plot is not only four years out of date, (s)he did Obama the favor of lending him W. Bush’s FY 2009 budget, which ran a whopping deficit of 9.8% in terms of GDP. [1] Looking at the most recent data available, and offsetting everything by a year so that no President inherits the last guy’s final act of creative accounting, we get this picture:

Obama’s 5.2% of GDP deficit over his entire tenure is still second only to FDR, but that’s a far cry from his (real) first term figure of 8.0% (not 8.3%). Still, that’s pretty irresponsible, right? Um … wrong:

Obama is the #2 deficit reduction artist after Truman, who was a fellow Democrat if you recall correctly. First place prize for jacking the deficit goes to Hoover (Republican). Second place goes to … drumroll please … W. Bush. Also a Republican. I think. If a performance like that isn’t good enough to get him branded a RINO, I don’t know what is. You’ll also note (if you can take off the blinders long enough to not get blinded) that Dems even including FDR have been deficit reducers on average over Republicans … who have tended to increase deficits even when excluding Hoover.

That should about do it for any further rumors as to my ability to overcome partisan bias and correctly parse reality. Et tu?

———————

[1] Your first plot which showed the deficit in constant dollars correctly assigned FY 2009 to W. Bush … as well as also properly handling the transitions for prior presidents. Check it.

So much spinning in an attempt to make it look like the Republicans are the only profligate ones.

I made no comment about wastefulness. But since you mention it, here are the budgeted outlays:

Here is the year on year change in spending:

Last two Democrats reduced spending. The last two Republicans did not — you have to go back to Reagan to find one who did. No spin here, just hard data.

It would be the acme of foolishness to declare on the strength of these two plots alone that one party is more spendthrifty than the other. It would also be the acme of foolishness to continue parroting partisan mythology that decidedly is NOT supported by the facts.

Truth of the matter likely is: you just don’t like *how* Democrats spend your money. Or that they have a tendency to increase tax receipts while in office whilst Republicans tend to reduce tax receipts.

That all said, I’ll leave it to the reader to decide which is generally more fiscally responsible when there’s deficit going:

I figure a deity is as good an explanation as any. The idea of the library of congress self-organizing from a random dance of atoms doesn’t pass the giggle test. The engineer in me refuses to believe that abstracts like language and predictive models that plan their own future (minds) can just materialize accidentally.

Wow. This was one of the most fact-free liberal political diatribes I’ve read in a long time.

One quote:

“He has threatened the censure of critics in the media, even condoning violence against protesters, calling them “thugs” and “criminals”. ”

What a load of poo. A hallmark of the liberal SJW is violence against Trump and Trump followers. One only needs read the newspaper or turn on the television to see that it is CLEARLY liberals that are the aggressors. Furthermore, there is a plethora of examples of climate alarmist lead censure, one need look no further than the Rico20 debacle, or the recent attack of Trump supporters by liberal thugs in San Jose after the mayor told the police to stand-down.

David,
Um. Not sure from where that came? I’d suggest all homicide (not just gun related) is objectionable. But for those who chose to commit homicide then suicide by cop (or similar) should leave out the first step and modify the second to leave out others.

The table reinforces jim2’s point. 2% is a low figure to begin with. Subtract suicides and gang related homicides and the number drops to a fraction of that 2%. If your objective is to reduce the odds of people dying of things other than old age, do you really believe focusing on the portion that represents hundredth’s of a percentage point deserves a whole lot of attention?

It is interesting to observe that the majority of people who so loudly support gun control measures appear to be so ignorant about guns. Why would I listen to a politician who knows zilch about the topic they are advocating for (or against)? As evidence: the 1994 assault weapons ban. Based almost entirely on cosmetic details. It’s as if they passed a law saying you can bring a pig into any establishment so long as it is wearing two out of these: wig, lipstick, sunglasses, shirt.

“Sure. Why not? Nothing in constitution forbids it. The surveilled still get to say what they want, go where they want, own guns, votes, etc. etc. All constitutional rights preserved,”

Draw those curtains little Diva, nobody wants to see you pole dancing in fishnet stockings and stiletto heels, things like that are private. As in privacy. What privacy people surrender to companies like Google and Amazon, people do so voluntarily and by contract. The same cannot be said about government. We know, thanks to unauthorized leaks, that this power claimed for surveillance has extended itself to demanding private companies turn over all their data.

The chicken little’s, always screaming for government to provide them with safety always accept the veneer as safety and will twist and turn and contort in painful ways to ignore the fact that all this surveillance didn’t stop the San Bernadino or Orlando attacks.

I would argue that freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and civil liberties have a positive benefit that would outweigh most of Trump and others have suggested as a solution to such a small problem.

Freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and civil liberties sure as hell don’t emanate from Islam! Look, there is no Constitutional privilege conferred to non-citizens. We have a right to let in who we want and keep out who we want.

The argument that we can’t control immigration because of the Constitution is M0R0NIC.

Are you trying to argue that freedom of religion, freedom of expression and establishment of civil liberties is what terrorism is about?

There is a reason the right to bear arms follows the right to exercise freedom of religion and expression. The gentlemen writing the amendments recognized where the greatest threat to those rights came from. Just as they knew that in the end, the greatest protection against that threat was ensuring it would never have a monopoly on the use of force. That is basis behind the 2nd Amendment.

JC – No, we shouldn’t place people under surveillance because of their religion, we should put them under surveillance based on the profile of terrorists; that is they or their parents are from certain countries known for terrorism. This is how Trump is defining who we exclude from immigration.

“I would argue that freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and civil liberties have a positive benefit that would outweigh most of Trump and others have suggested as a solution to such a small problem.”

Because Dred Scott has never been overturned the principle of that ruling still applies, and if a person is not a citizen of any state then the federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear their complaints of denied and disparaged rights. So, when Trump is calling for a ban on Muslim immigrants – or immigrants who come from areas of known terrorist support – these people cannot rely reliably on the federal courts to help them.

On a personal note, I do not agree with Trump’s solution, but in terms of free exercise of religion and of speech, case law does not support your argument.

I was addressing your comment at 1:01 PM. If you want to change subjects fine. Just don’t try putting words in my mouth when you do.

I haven’t advocated surveillance of anyone. Nor have you seen me criticizing the FBI for not stopping Mateen before he acted. I strongly believe in civil rights. I also know that the biggest protection of those rights is the right to own firearms.

I presume I’m being watched by the government to whatever extent is economical and legal. I also presume Amazon and especially Google know a lot more than gov’t due to a vested interest by the former. I’m not breaking any laws or planning it so I couldn’t give rat’s ass beyond the tax dollars possibly being wasted on a non-entity like me. If I don’t care about me I don’t about anyone else either. Just so long as they are clever about profiling so they get the best results for the lowest cost. Muslims should be at the top of the list. Orlando never should have happened if the feds had been doing their jobs. That kid practically broadcast bad intentions his entire life.

Sources tell me we should not conflate the right to travel with the right to drive a car at will:

The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves . . . In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers . . . This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the States and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens.

Freedom fighters do. Sadly, all too often, those linking things like “pseudolaw.com” don’t take heed, and seemingly don’t bother to read what it is they’re linking. For example, when “psuedolaw.com” states:

“Traffic regulation isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, therefore the power generally falls to the States pursuant to the 10th Amendment:”

First, take note they are speaking of traffic regulation which is a far cry from addressing licensing schemes to drive. Of course the states have the right to regulate traffic, as do the municipalities, towns, hamlets and villages do. What does that have to do with the right to drive?

Further, why is it, do you think, the admin over there at “pseudolaw.com” feel compelled to point out that the federal constitution that does not mention traffic regulation is the Supreme Law of the Land? What do you think their point is at that moment they concede that the Supreme Law of the Land is silent on traffic regulation? What is relevance?

Of course, shortly after this odd concession made by “pseduolaw.com” they then link to Roger Roots paper The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950:

“Driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States. However, this was not always the case. When automobiles were first introduced around the turn of the twentieth century, drivers relied on common law traditions that protected the right of every person to travel upon public roadways without a license.”

Just more concession from psuedolaw.com for anyone who is paying attention. Root’s paper, by the way does not advocate the loss of liberty Root is lamenting it. While psuedolaw.com wants to convince you that common law was repealed and replaced with departments of motor vehicles, the paper is far more nuanced and doesn’t support the citing author’s argument. Did you read it?

“Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.”

In response to “pseudolaw.com’s” assertion that common law can be repealed and replaced with legislation that would in effect repeal a common law right, I counter by using the infamous Miranda v. Arizona (1966):

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Or how about Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago:

“Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. Where one undertakes, however, to make a greater use of the public highways for his own private gain, as by the operation of a stage coach, an omnibus, a truck or a motor bus, the State may not only regulate the use of the vehicles on the highway but may prohibit it. A municipality can do so only under a power expressly granted by the State.”

If you were paying attention to the article you linked then you know “pseudolaw.com” conceded that the SCOTUS has declined to hear any cases regarding drivers licensing schemes and so we are left with federal rulings. Your aptly named website chose to cherry pick and post rulings that make the freedom fighters look like hapless saps, but who really is the sap?

I can go on continuing my critical analysis of the article you linked, but do I really need to?

> Further, why is it, do you think, the admin over there at “pseudolaw.com” feel compelled to point out that the federal constitution that does not mention traffic regulation is the Supreme Law of the Land? What do you think their point is at that moment they concede that the Supreme Law of the Land is silent on traffic regulation? What is relevance?

Freedom Fighters should start putting more on the table than rhetorical questions, or else they’re just shadow boxing.

> What does this even mean? Are you suggesting that only the case law your side – you know all the government is good disinformation sites like the one you linked – has “constitutional teeth”?

I’m suggesting that the onus is on the Freedom Fighters to challenge the right of states to impose laws regarding the usage of vehicles on the public roads. In other words, either you create some kind of Roadster Standoff (like we’ve seen in Oregon) and don’t lose stupidly (like we haven’t seen in Oregon), it amounts to very little.

Besides, one of the two cases you cite has more to do with the right for a bus driver to “operate a business” (wink wink) on public roads without a permit:

The streets and highways belong to the public. They are built and maintained at public expense for the use of the general public in the ordinary and customary manner. The state, and the city as an arm of the state, has absolute control of the streets in the interest of the public. No private individual or corporation has a right to the use of the streets
in the prosecution of the business of a common carrier for private gain without the consent of the state, nor except upon the terms and conditions prescribed by the state or municipality, as the case may be. The use of the streets as a place of business or as a main instrumentality of business is accorded as a mere privilege and not as a matter of natural right.

> In other words, either you create some kind of Roadster Standoff (like we’ve seen in Oregon) and don’t lose stupidly (like we haven’t seen in Oregon), it amounts to very little.

Let’s rewrite that one:

In other words, either you create some kind of Roadster Standoff (like we’ve seen in Oregon) and don’t lose stupidly (like we haven’t seen in Oregon), or you continue to pontificate on rudiments of the philosophy of law at Judy’s.

“I’m suggesting that the onus is on the Freedom Fighters to challenge the right of states to impose laws regarding the usage of vehicles on the public roads.”

Yeah? I’m actually suggesting the same damn thing only much more cogently. This is demonstrable when I stated:

“Driving is a right and people can take that right back any time they want…sure, they’ll have to fight for that right, but it is their right to fight for.”

” In other words, either you create some kind of Roadster Standoff (like we’ve seen in Oregon) and don’t lose stupidly (like we haven’t seen in Oregon), it amounts to very little.”

No “standoff (like we’ve seen in Oregon)” is necessary. You big government advocates sure like to fetishize alarm, don’t you? All that is required is good old fashioned American non-acquiescence and the patience needed to use the courts to reign the system in.

“Besides, one of the two cases you cite has more to do with the right for a bus driver to “operate a business” (wink wink) on public roads without a permit:”

Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired. The very passage you quoted makes clear that private individuals engaging in commerce do not have the same right as the public in general. The very last sentence you quote makes that clear.

“It goes even further in reaffirming the right of the state to prohibit a citizen from doing business on its public roads if it sees fit.”

You’re equivocating. It also reaffirms the right of the public to use the highways for travel. Pretending like an acknowledgment that the state has the authority to regulate commerce is actually an authority to deny and disparage the right to drive is just peacock preening pretentiousness

“You can also find the claim that “the fourteenth amendment does not create any right in a citizen to use the public property in defiance of the laws of the state” if you search toward the end.”

The 14th Amendment is a horrible amendment that needs to be repealed. Unless it is the last resort and there is a chance the 14th Amendment will set you free, only a fool would rely upon that amendment, and the right to travel as an enshrined right in the Constitution predates the Bill of Rights, so stop equivocating.

> The very passage you quoted makes clear that private individuals engaging in commerce do not have the same right as the public in general.

It actually shows that handwaving to this case is a red herring, for the simple reason that it’s about a guy who wanted to use a bus without a permit. That it is a red herring is shown by the reaffirmation that The state, and the city as an arm of the state, has absolute control of the streets in the interest of the public. Therefore, Freedom Fighters might need another case if they want to show that the Constitution prevents states from obligating drivers to operate a motor vehicle to get a license and that “[T]he right to travel as an enshrined right in the Constitution predates the Bill of Rights.” The right to travel, as it is interpreted nowadays, has yet to apply to driving.

***

> The 14th Amendment is a horrible amendment that needs to be repealed.

Reading Hadfield v. Lundin suffices to see that more paper terrorism might be required before the unconstitutionality of the 14th amendment gets established:

It is urged that the statute is unconstitutional in that it deprives appellant of his liberty and property without due process of law, thus contravening section 3, article 1, of the state constitution, and in that it deprives him of the equal protection of the law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal constitution. We have twice held this law constitutional.

In other words, either you create some kind of Roadster Standoff (like we’ve seen in Oregon) and don’t lose stupidly (like we haven’t seen in Oregon), or you continue to pontificate on rudiments of the philosophy of law at Judy’s.”

Sadly, you’re rewrite only makes you look more confused. Perhaps you needed pointed out to you that the only reason driver licensing schemes are being discussed in a thread about the presidential election is because Jim D was pontificating and put forth as a part of his catechism that guns should be privilege not a right just like driving. Because of that pontification here we are knee deep in a debate over the right to drive.

Again, you attempt to create a false equivalence with the Oregon standoff – you, of course, make no mention of the similar standoff at the Bundy ranch – and lawful assertion of rights. The Oregon standoff has nothing to do with this discussion and is not just false equivalence, you also create a false dilemma, implying that the only options when fighting for a right or rights is an armed standoff or submission to the state. This is not why our governments, both state and federal, were created with three competing offices of government, including a judiciary that has the power of judicial review. There is no reason for anyone to buy into your perverse fetish of alarm and dilemmas.

“It actually shows that handwaving to this case is a red herring, for the simple reason that it’s about a guy who wanted to use a bus without a permit.”

It makes perfect sense that a guy who is selling the false dilemma of armed standoffs or submission to the state would dismiss citation of case law as a “red herring” and “hand waving” Your continued demonstration of your ignorance of law is not helping your arguments.

Virtually all case law is narrow in its scope and pertains to the facts of that case. This is why the states are pushing back against Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of Chicago, not to have those rulings overturned but attempts to work within the constraint of those rulings, and any challenges made to the new attempts – legal challenges not your perverted road warrior ‘pocylypse vision – are attempts to widen those constraints to apply to the new efforts.

It is always the scope that is the issue in any challenge to a legislative act or the application of it.

“That it is a red herring is shown by the reaffirmation that The state, and the city as an arm of the state, has absolute control of the streets in the interest of the public.”

You are misrepresenting what was actually held:

“The streets and highways belong to the public. They are
built and maintained at public expense for the use of the
general public in the ordinary and customary manner. The
state, and the city as an arm of the state, has absolute
control of the streets in the interest of the public. No private
individual or corporation has a right to the use of the streets
in the prosecution of the business of a common carrier for
private gain without the consent of the state, nor except upon
the terms and conditions prescribed by the state or
municipality, as the case may be. The use of the streets as a place
of business or as a main instrumentality of business is
accorded as a mere privilege and not as a matter of natural
right.”

It is commerce that is being reaffirmed as a power of the state to regulate and not driving. It should be pointed out that the “absolute control of the streets” is in the “public interest” and rights are a part of that public interest. Further, the court distinguished this and clarified the scope of the states power:

“Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.”

Willard says:

“Therefore, Freedom Fighters might need another case if they want to show that the Constitution prevents states from obligating drivers to operate a motor vehicle to get a license and that “[T]he right to travel as an enshrined right in the Constitution predates the Bill of Rights.” The right to travel, as it is interpreted nowadays, has yet to apply to driving.”

This is hysterical and reminds me that you dismissed my direct questions to you as being “hypothetical”. Of course, one of those direct questions was asking you if you had read Roger Root’s paper recommended by the admin of “pseudolaw.com” as an “excellent paper that thoroughly explores the transitional period when decisions could go either way”. You very obviously did not read that paper recommended by the very same site you linked in a failed attempt to discredit the right to drive. I will address in detail the facts presented by Roger Root that your site found so excellent and will demonstrate what I already said, and that was that Root’s paper did not support “pseudolaw.com’s” argument that the common law right to drive was “replaced” with legislation. I will not do this in this post, but will use my afternoon to use other posts to demonstrate how Root’s paper supports my arguments my arguments and not the site you linked nor yours.

> There is no reason for anyone to buy into your perverse fetish of alarm and dilemmas.

Since you have nothing to say, let’s commit another tidbit, this time from StackExchange [1]:

The Thompson v. Smith decision explicitly supports the idea that requiring drivers licenses is allowed. To quote a more representative section from the case:

[…]

AUTOMOBILES — Drivers’ Permits — Arbitrary Revocation. — The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking under rules of general application permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to others of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.

Another contributor, who laconically responds that Yes, you are allowed to travel in a motor vehicle without a driver’s license, as long as you are not driving the vehicle, goes on to observe that

If you Google some of the material from the question, you’ll see that this line of reasoning is taken from several web sites that employ the same sort of fallacious logic applied to a carefully selected subset of laws and precedents that is used by many to argue that income tax is unconstitutional.

Which leads me to ask you, dear Jean-Paul: do you believe that income tax is unconstutional?

Another contributor, who laconically responds that Yes, you are allowed to travel in a motor vehicle without a driver’s license, as long as you are not driving the vehicle, goes on to observe that

If you Google some of the material from the question, you’ll see that this line of reasoning is taken from several web sites that employ the same sort of fallacious logic applied to a carefully selected subset of laws and precedents that is used by many to argue that income tax is unconstitutional.

Which leads me to ask you, dear Jean-Paul: do you believe that income tax is unconstutional?

“…Freedom Fighters might need another case if they want to show that the Constitution prevents states from obligating drivers to operate a motor vehicle to get a license…”

Let me explain to you how American jurisprudence works in this regard. When Justice Blackmun delivered his opinion in Roe v. Wade, early on he references a dissenting opinion made years earlier by Justice Holmes (a now vindicated dissent) in Lochner v New York. However, Roe v. Wade challenged Texas abortion statutes and Lochner v New York was a challenge of anarchy statutes.

Later in Roe v. Wade Justice Blackmun references Mitchell v. Donovan (1970), which was a case about the communist party in Minnesota fighting to get put on the state ballot. Directly following that citation, Blackmun cites Gunn v. University Committee, a case regarding protester’s of the Vietnam conflict at the edge of a crowd attending a speech made by President Johnson in Texas.

Later in that same paragraph Justice Blackmun then cites Cater v. Jury Commission, a case where a group of black voters sued the jury commission because despite the willingness of the black community to serve as a member of a jury not one had ever been called. Directly after that citation, Justice Blackmun then cites Florida Lime Growers v. Jacobsen which was a case challenging a California agricultural statute banning the importation of avocados.

I have used one ruling by SCOTUS, Roe v. Wade and only cited a handful of the many citations of previous case law where the narrow scope of the facts had nothing at all to do with abortion. Perhaps you might think that judges get to use “red herrings” and engage in “hand waving”, who knows?

“Which leads me to ask you, dear Jean-Paul: do you believe that income tax is unconstutional?”

You’re hysterical, particularly coming from the guy who claimed I had nothing to say. I’m glad there isn’t any licensing schemes placed on clowns, God only knows how that might have put a chill on your humor. As funny as you are, desperate flailing with distraction ain’t gonna work, Willard.

““Driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States. However, this was not always the case. When automobiles were first introduced around the turn of the twentieth century, drivers relied on common law traditions that protected the right of every person to travel upon public roadways without a license. Courts repeatedly wrote of an individual’s “right to travel” by automobile and struck down regulations aimed at limiting the liberties of automobile drivers on constitutional grounds. With the passage of time, however, automobile regulators generally prevailed in legislative halls and courtrooms. Today, the public has accepted a degree of travel regulation which would have seemed almost tyrannical to nineteenth century Americans. This paper analyzes this change in common law and suggests that even if most Americans are unaware of it, the change represents a substantial loss of liberty.”

Take note how Root contradicts both you and the “authority” you cite by stating “Courts repeatedly wrote of an individual’s ‘right to travel’ by automobile and struck down regulations aimed at limiting the liberties of automobile drivers on constitutional grounds”

Because, apparently those regulations had no “constitutional teeth”, but more importantly Root has completely contradicted your claim that “The right to travel, as it is interpreted nowadays, has yet to apply to driving.”

To make the reading easier on you I will limit each post to one quote per post of Root’s paper. I will follow this with another.

““During the Gilded Age, while travel over America’s patchwork system of roads was often difficult due to road conditions, it was relatively free from regulations. n27 American roads of the period were routes not only for horses and carriages, but for bicycles, mule or oxen [*249] teams, and large amounts of pedestrian traffic. “A public highway … [was] open in all its length and breadth to the reasonable, common, and equal use of the people, on foot or in vehicles.” n28 “A traveler on foot [had] the same right to the use of any public highway [as the operator of] an automobile or any other vehicle.” n29 The very term “highway” meant a “public way open and free to anyone who had occasion to pass along it on foot” or by vehicle, and many courts, up until quite recent decades, so stated.”

~Root – 2005~

Now let’s contrast what Root claims against what your site claims:

“The phrase “right to travel” should be clarified because it’s commonly confused.

Many cases, documents, etc. using the phrase “right to travel” are in fact about Freedom of Movement, which is the Constitutional right to travel between States at will. If anyone speaks of a “Constitutional right to travel” Freedom of Movement is the only valid thing they could be referring to, as we’ll show.”

It is unclear why your site thought it was a good idea to cite Root and in my next post I will demonstrate further how much Root and your site are in disagreement about what the right to travel means.

more importantly Root[s] has completely contradicted your claim that “The right to travel, as it is interpreted nowadays, has yet to apply to driving.”

is pure gold. Root hasn’t contradicted it at all – unless you misinterpret my “yet.” It meant “as matters currently stands,” not “as matters always were.” I could not care less for the idyllic time that Roots is rooting for, where everyone could go everywhere under the Common law. I only suspected that you did – this is why I gave you that resource.

Once you accept Roots’ standpoint, however, you need also to accept that Driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States. Accepting this fact is enough for me, and is enough for Jim D’s point to stand. You can dispute that this fact shouldn’t be to your heart’s content – at least accept that this is how things are as we stand.

This is correct and what I have been saying all along. The right to travel has nothing at all to do with licensing drivers. Licensing drivers would have to fall under the privilege of driving, not the right.

“Drivers licenses are required by state laws”

It is always the scope that matters. The scope of those state legislative acts, either facially or as applied are the heart of the matter. Your simplistic view of law works well for tyranny, but has nothing to do with American jurisprudence. Indeed, while you dismissed my example of Roe v. Wade to demonstrate how wide and varied case law is used to support legal arguments, what I demonstrated by that example was the Roe was able to not only have the Texas statute deemed unconstitutional, but was able to have it applied to all states. Judicial review has always been an important tool of the people.

:”There’s nothing unconstitutional about (drivers licensing schemes)”

As long as the statutes are facially constitutional and applied constitutionally you are correct. In no way does your correctness prevent a private person not engaged in commerce from driving on the public roads without any permission from the state.

“No amount of mansplaining on Roe will help you undermine that there’s jurisprudence for all 3.”

And no matter how many times you use cutesy words like “mansplaining” it will not make you any more knowledgeable about law. When you claim that Hadfield v. Lundin does not apply to the right to drive you are, in fact, making a mistake of law, an erroneous point of fact, and just flat out demonstrating your ignorance. So, you can insist on remaining ignorant and pat yourself on the back for using cutesy phrases like “mansplaining” or you can learn from the example I provided that the narrow facts of any case do not preclude the use of same legal reasoning in cases where the facts differ.

Remain ignorant if you want, it is your choice. I’m going to get back to posting paragraphs from Roots article to demonstrate how it didn’t even come close to supporting your vacuous argument.

Spare me your Clintonims (depend on what your definition of is is). Nobody is “misinterpreting” you, you just have a hard time communicating your really fuzzy ideas, and your ignorance of the law doesn’t help you.

> I’m going to get back to posting paragraphs from Roots article to demonstrate how it didn’t even come close to supporting your vacuous argument.

And I’m going to keep reminding you that the first sentence of the abstract of Roots is all I need to support my argument that driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States. Perhaps I’ll indulge in citing a few criticisms of Roots if I care, just FYEO.

“Once you accept Roots’ standpoint, however, you need also to accept that Driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States. Accepting this fact is enough for me, and is enough for Jim D’s point to stand. You can dispute that this fact shouldn’t be to your heart’s content – at least accept that this is how things are as we stand.”

Of course you could only admit that Root is making my argument and not yours by declaring “Once you accept Roots standpoint, however…”

Further, Dick Anthony Heller quite obviously disagrees with you, and because of that disagreement the District of Columbia found their statute regarding the prohibition of keeping guns in ones own home. Otis McDonald quite obviously disagrees with you and because of that disagreement the City of Chicago had to have the SCOTUS explain to them that they could not ban the possession of firearms and people had the right to keep and bear them.

Had they accepted that the statutes passed and “this is how things are as we stand”, then there never would have been a DC v. Heller and McDonald v Chicago.

“And I’m going to keep reminding you that the first sentence of the abstract of Roots is all I need to support my argument that driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States.”

Remind away all you want if you think it makes your argument look better, but it should be pointed out that Root’s first sentence is not the thesis statement of that abstract. The thesis statement is this:

“Today, the public has accepted a degree of travel regulation which would
have seemed almost tyrannical to nineteenth century Americans. This paper analyzes this change in common law and suggests that even if most Americans are unaware of it, the change represents a substantial loss of liberty.”

But by all means, keep reminding me how all you read was the first sentence and that’s all you need to declare yourself in the possession of knowledge.

“A quote where Dick disputes that “driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States” would be nice.”

Lame straw man, Willard. Dick Heller disagrees with you that he should have just accepted that the D.C. ordinance prohibiting gun ownership in one’s own home as how things stood at the time, and obviously does because he sued for his right to keep and bear arms.

If what stands is a denial and disparagement of a right then it should not be accepted as it stands. This is obviously what Dick Heller thought, what Otis McDonald thought and what countless others who have challenged oppressive legislation in the past disagree with, that something currently stands should just be accepted without challenge.

> “Today, the public has accepted a degree of travel regulation which would have seemed almost tyrannical to nineteenth century Americans.

Roots’ thesis goes beyond what is dogwhistled by this counterfactual backed up with two weasel words, Jean-Paul. However you word it, that thesis assumes that driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States.

I can play counterfactuals too: if Roots disputed that these laws are unconstitutional, you would have found a quote already.

“I can play counterfactuals too: if Roots disputed that these laws are unconstitutional, you would have found a quote already.”

Okay, I guess you can’t cogently explain Root’s standpoint, and all those posts dismissing what I have quoted were not properly read by you. So let me continue my analysis of Root’s paper.

Root’s The Orphaned Right Post 3:

His very next paragraph is as follows:

“The rule of open travel on the roads was viewed as superior to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press throughout the late 1800’s. Eighteenth and nineteenth century judges upheld the practices of slavery, wife beating, flogging, and child-beatings in the public schools, but strictly prohibited the infringement of the right to travel. In fact, the right to travel without undue restriction was the very first right recognized as a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

Root’s next paragraph reads:

“The right to travel meant travel by virtually any means available, or at least any ordinary or usual means. Carriages, horses and every type of cart that could be pushed, pulled, or dragged across the landscape by the muscle of the human or animal qualified. When bicycles came into widespread use in the 1880’s, courts often struck down regional ordinances aimed at curbing the use of the machines. There seemed to be no reason to treat the first pioneers of horseless carriages any differently. In 1907, the Supreme Court of Iowa, like many state courts, opted to place automobile travel within the same category as travel by horse, carriages or other vehicles. ‘The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel,” wrote Justice Ladd, “is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or travelling by some other vehicle.” “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural district,” stated the Minnesota Supreme Court, [yet] they have no exclusive right.'”

Go ahead Willard, ignore this and keep making the claim that Root actually assumes that driving is merely a privilege and not a right.

This is a good question. The self driving cars, in my opinion, give the state the compelling argument they need to establish jurisdiction over them. It seems to me that riding in a self driving car a person is surrendering their own agency, much like they are when riding a bus or other forms of public transportation. How the vehicle gets to the destination is out of the hands of the passenger.

The state has a valid argument for the regulation of self driving cars, but licensing owners to own self driving cars is a bit problematic.

The problems that come with self driving cars, legally speaking, lie in liability following accidents. Who is liable for an accident caused by two self driving cars? Brave new world…

“The self driving cars, in my opinion, give the state the compelling argument they need to establish jurisdiction over them. It seems to me that riding in a self driving car a person is surrendering their own agency,……..” makes sense in my book. Requires no form of licencing. Driver/operator status becomes moot.

Then, “The problems that come with self driving cars, legally speaking, lie in liability following accidents. Who is liable for an accident caused by two self driving cars?” And this portion of the discussion would presumably fall in to a product liability heading.

So this leads me to wonder if one might expect protective legislation such as ” Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” (a federal, not state law). Would this be considered desirable? Should robots be additionally covered (no real difference than a self driving car), and what restrictions might be considered especially since future use might not yet be fathomable?

From the below article:
“Say a gun retailer handed a gun to a visibly intoxicated person, then they’re not subject to the immunity,” said Lytton, who studies gun industry litigation.
You might ask: Since Remington did not come into direct contact with the shooter — that happened at a gun retailer — how would that apply? The lawsuit argues that the way in which the company sells and markets a military-style weapon to the civilian market is a form of negligent entrustment.
“Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat — and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it,” Koskoff, the attorney for the families, said. “They took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making a lot of money.”

This ad superbiam won’t cover for the fact that you claimed many times that “driving is a right,” while Roots claim that “driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States. Furthermore, how you assert that Roots “is making [your] argument” when he refuted your claim that driving is a right is a thing of beauty.

Let’s hope that soon enough you’ll correct your claim that driving is a right to something more sensible, say that driving could be a right, or even that it should be. You know, the usual sovereign citizen stuff, followed by the usual law-like sloganeering.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Good government, in my estimation, is protection of law, and as I have stated law flows from the rights of the individual.

“So this leads me to wonder if one might expect protective legislation such as ” Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” (a federal, not state law). Would this be considered desirable? Should robots be additionally covered (no real difference than a self driving car), and what restrictions might be considered especially since future use might not yet be fathomable?”

You are asking great questions. In terms of the 2nd Amendment, if governments begin using self battling machines there is an argument to be made that the well regulated militias have the same right to access of such technology.

In my opinion, no one has the right to weapons of mass destruction. By no one I mean no one, not the people nor the governments they ordain have this right. I make this point because of my reading of the 2nd Amendment which would be that the right of the people to keep and bear arms means they have the the right to the same or comparable weapons as their own government. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about guns. My further take of that reading is that if you don’t want individuals claiming the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, then government has no right to do so either.

In terms of the name of the legislation you propose, a name alone does not give much information about what the act actually does. The Leave No Child Behind Act has wound up leaving plenty of children behind, and the Patriot Act appears to be everything but patriotic.

““Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat — and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it,”

Well regulated militias. Who are they? The people. Maybe if your getting at legislation that would at the point of purchase impose a requirement of accreditation to demonstrate that the one making the purchase has been properly trained in how to use the weapon, clean the weapon, store the weapon and the same training that military soldiers, this might be a way to appease gun control advocates (I doubt it) while respecting the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

“In terms of the name of the legislation you propose, a name alone does not give much information about what the act actually does. The Leave No Child Behind Act has wound up leaving plenty of children behind, and the Patriot Act appears to be everything but patriotic.” (Hear, hear).

Here, although, apparently I’ve erred in communication. I’m actually not (at this point) a proponent of some sort of equivalent to the firearms act to encompass the autonomous cars as the product liability protections for the manufacturers should not (IMO) be greater than the protections afforded those damaged by those products. I am following the Sandy Hook issue with interest. I am not in agreement with the firearms protections afforded with the act. The 2nd is sufficient (again, IMO).

Where we differ is the equivalence issue. There is a chain of command voted on (IE commander in chief) which is presumed to protect the populous and oversee the military and associated weaponry. The same check/balance is not in place for an individual and in the example of Orlando and Sandy Hook had these criminals had access ‘the people’ would have been left out of the equation and a higher level weaponry being employed would have been much worse.

Where we might find common ground is with a requirement going forward for smart weaponry. And a limitation to some standard number of rounds (maybe 9?) could also be reached via mutual agreement. Shotguns are limited already, why not alternative forms of ‘firearms’. The argument that this ‘infringes’ on 2nd amendment does not pass muster as there are limitations already. One cannot purchase a fully automatic weapon w/o greater restriction, as an example.

“Well regulated militias. Who are they? The people.” Well regulated is the key. What is ‘well’, and how is ‘regulated’ defined.

“This ad superbiam won’t cover for the fact that you claimed many times that “driving is a right,” while Roots claim that “driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States.”

That is correct, Root claims this is *according* to *prevailing laws*. This in no way demonstrates that Root makes the assumption that driving is a privilege and not a right. Go on Willard, keep focusing on the first sentence of Root’s paper alone and keep ignoring the rest of what Root wrote.

Root, for example, did not write:

The law is clear on this issue and driving is a privilege and not a right.

Nor did he write:

In my opinion I think the state laws on drivers licenses as they stand is immutable and not subject to judicial review.

He wrote what he wrote and he stated what he stated and he did not state what he did not state.

> That is correct, Root claims this is *according* to *prevailing laws*. This in no way demonstrates that Root makes the assumption that driving is a privilege and not a right.

How Clintonian of you, Jean-Paul. You’re redefining *is* not to imply *is the actual fact.*

Besides, Roots doesn’t “assume” that dricing is a privilege and not a right. That’s something he *shows* in his paper. Not in a footnote, mind you – it’s the *most* of the work he did for his paper. The main reason why we’d read this paper is to get an idea of how driving *is now* a privilege and not a right.

There are interesting footnotes too, but if you’re to pull a Clinton over a silly mistake, I don’t think it’d be a good idea to delve into them. Over the years, I’ve learned the hard way to curb my enthusiasm regarding the Freedom Fighters learning curve.

You were wrong in claiming that driving *is* a right. It is a social fact that in America, as things stand, it *is not*. Jim D was right, after all.

Willard, “You were wrong in claiming that driving *is* a right. It is a social fact that in America, as things stand, it *is not*. Jim D was right, after all.”

Nope, JimD was making a false comparison between the two. You have a right to own a gun or car but there are limits to how you may use or operate your gun or car. The limits to both should be set by the state and local governments when they impact the public.

It is an interesting comparison without the typical BS though. Cars, defined as four or more wheel motorized vehicles have different regulations for different usage. Two and three wheel vehicles don’t have the same regulation. Flat rate fees and minimum insurance requirements impact lower wage earners more than the wealthy so there are some constitutional issues. If that gets bad enough, you could see streets in the US start to look like Saigon with cheap mopeds taking over. I guess that is the goal of dedicated socialists :)

The Saturday Night Special laws tried to regulate “cheap” firearms which could be considered affordable firearms by certain segments of society. Since it obviously targeted lower income black Americans just like the Army Navy Law in Tennessee, there were constitutional issues. The result of the law though was more powerful and deadly weapons being used by criminals. Instead of running up against a .25 or .32 now you can expect a 9mm.

Perhaps I was unclear, Cap’n: when I say that Jim D’s right, I am referring to his claim that driving is not a right, but a privilege. Do you dispute this, now that even Roots accepts that driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States? I mean, come on: Roots even questions the constitutionality of cops (elsewhere), but doesn’t dispute that driving is a privilege.

Also note how Jim D worded his claim:

It should be a privilege, not a right, like driving.

Even Jim D uses a modality (“should”) that Jean-Paul is still eluding.

***

Also note that Jim D’s claim presumes that the “it” is a right. Do you dispute that? Disputing that would be an intriguing twist to this episode.

Willard, “Driving is a privileged” is only correct because it is vague. That makes it a strawman.

JimD is correct is a strawman because he was using his straw to validate gun control which he wasn’t able to do, in fact he provided an excellent example how how owning is a right but operation in public areas is a privileged. It is illegal pretty much everywhere to operate a firearm on city streets without some sort of permission :)

“Besides, Roots doesn’t “assume” that dricing is a privilege and not a right. That’s something he *shows* in his paper. Not in a footnote, mind you – it’s the *most* of the work he did for his paper. The main reason why we’d read this paper is to get an idea of how driving *is now* a privilege and not a right.”

Make up your mind, Willard. Earlier you claimed that Root’s thesis statement assumes that driving is a privilege and not a right and now you’re saying it doesn’t. It is quite obvious you haven’t read Root’s paper and you have no idea what Root demonstrates. That you have no idea after I have posted several paragraphs of his in this thread only further demonstrates your intellectual bankruptcy. In terms of “we” you need to speak for yourself. I only read the paper because it was in the site you linked and I bothered to read the authorities they were citing. You, again, have obviously not read Root’s paper, so claiming “we” or even “the only reason I read this paper…” would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

The very last sentence in Root’s closing paragraph reads:

“Thus, the impositions of driver licensing and traffic patrol by agents of the State have generated a very real increase in the State’s control over American’s lives.”

Why would you pretend as if you’ve read this paper?

“There are interesting footnotes too, but if you’re to pull a Clinton over a silly mistake, I don’t think it’d be a good idea to delve into them. Over the years, I’ve learned the hard way to curb my enthusiasm regarding the Freedom Fighters learning curve.”

Translation: “Blah blah blah blah I didn’t bother to read past the first sentence, yadda yadda yadda, I don’t have to because I’m smarter than anyone I disagree with meek meek and merk merk blah blah blah.

Read the paper genius. Try reading the article you linked. I won’t bother to encourage you to actually read the case law, but Root’s paper is written in a very rudimentary language that you should be able to understand, so read it.

> “Driving is a privileged” [sic.] is only correct because it is vague.

Oh, I see. That must be because it depends upon the meaning of *is*. Perhaps it’s also vague because “driving” is not exactly “operating.” In any case, it’s certainly not correct because, as Roots say, driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States. Right?

I’m glad you accept that it’s correct. But I’m afraid it’s not enough. I think you need to acknowledge that “driving is a privilege” is true, because it is an actual fact that driving is a privilege in the United States [1]. In other words, you need to contradict what our in-house proto-constitutionalist claimed earlier: the fact that driving is a right is simply false.

[1]: If you want to know more about that kind of construction, cf. Tarski.

“I’m glad you accept that it’s correct. But I’m afraid it’s not enough. I think you need to acknowledge that “driving is a privilege” is true, because it is an actual fact that driving is a privilege in the United States [1]. In other words, you need to contradict what our in-house proto-constitutionalist claimed earlier: the fact that driving is a right is simply false.”

Prove it! Stop strutting around puffing your pretty feathers out like a preening peacock and actually make an argument that demonstrates that driving is, as you claim, a “privilege and not a right.” You have failed to do so thus far, can you do it now?

No it is not. Case law is a collection of rulings. Within that collection of rulings are a myriad of principles applied to the narrow facts of the case at hand, but case law itself is not a principle. To some degree starre decisis holds weight with case law – a principle – but judicial review – another principle – and the high courts willingness to overturn previous rulings reduces the weight. Another principle in case law is that appellate rulings binds lower courts to the higher courts ruling.

“It’s hard to read case law.”

No it isn’t and even you can read case law and follow what is being held and why. Of course, it requires you actually read beyond the first sentence but you can do it.

“If you want a real case, try Hill v. City of Harvey, 1993, Jean-Paul, and report.”

You should have read the link you provided. If you had read this summary you would have it explained to you exactly why Hill lost. Take note, by the way, how I have only offered up declarations of rights found in the state constitution. That was no accident. Read what you’re linking.

“We agree with the district court that Hill has not stated a claim cognizable under § 1983. As we have previously held, § 1983 does not provide a remedy for all governmental abuses of power; it protects only against violations of federal constitutional rights. Archie v. City of Racine, 847 F.2d 1211, 1216 (7th Cir.1991) (en banc). Although Hill attempts to couch some of his arguments in federal constitutional terms, they all boil down to violations of the Illinois constitution, statutes, and caselaw. Such violations do not infringe the federal constitution. Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 11 (1944).”

By “real case law” do you mean rulings you agree with?

“If you can’t even bother to admit that your claim that “driving is a right” is false, your legal theatrics won’t suffice for what’s coming.”

No it isn’t. Case law is a body of legal rulings. Within those rulings are a myriad of principles. One principle in case law is starre decisis, but an opposing principle in American jurisprudence is judicial review and the courts willingness to overturn previous rulings.

“It’s hard to read case law.”

No it isn’t. Even you can do it.

“If you want a real case, try Hill v. City of Harvey, 1993, Jean-Paul, and report.”

By “real case law” do you mean rulings you agree with?

Did you read that summary of Hill v Harvey? Did you not read number 5 or did you just read the first sentence of the summary?

Take note how I haven’t once pointed to the federal constitution in demonstrating that driving is a right and not a privilege and then pay close attention to what the 7th Circuit has to say about Hill’s blunder.

“If you can’t even bother to admit that your claim that “driving is a right” is false, your legal theatrics won’t suffice for what’s coming.”

Try reading what you link. You’re only helping my case, not hurting it.

“Where we differ is the equivalence issue. There is a chain of command voted on (IE commander in chief) which is presumed to protect the populous and oversee the military and associated weaponry. The same check/balance is not in place for an individual and in the example of Orlando and Sandy Hook had these criminals had access ‘the people’ would have been left out of the equation and a higher level weaponry being employed would have been much worse.”

Criminals do have access to dangerous weaponry. On the black market criminals can purchase AK-47’s, rocket launchers, and grenades.

In terms of checks and balances, one of those checks on that chain of command you speak of is the 2nd Amendment, and in order to believe that the individual isn’t confronted with checks and balances regarding guns, I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that Sandy Hook is as it was, a gun free zone. What is that if not a check on the individual? The bar in Orlando also is a gun free zone and patron’s are prohibited by state law from bringing guns into the establishment.

It is folly to believe that the prohibition of any product will keep that product out of the criminals hands. It will not, it will create a business opportunity for the criminal and only the law abiding will honor the prohibition and even then only for as long as they believe it is the right thing to obey.

“The argument that this ‘infringes’ on 2nd amendment does not pass muster as there are limitations already. One cannot purchase a fully automatic weapon w/o greater restriction, as an example.”

The limitations placed on keeping and bearing arms was even greater prior to D.C. v Heller and McDonald v Chicago. I would argue that it does infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. I got to tell you Danny, I have never owned a gun, don’t want to own a gun and would be perfectly happy never having to own a gun. I don’t really like guns but my reading of the 2nd Amendment is that the prohibition placed on federal government in infringing this right exists because well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free state. The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of hunting, or self defense in one’s own home, (even though these are fundamental rights) but it makes clear that the security of a free state belongs in the hands of the people.

JPZ,
“Criminals do have access to dangerous weaponry. On the black market criminals can purchase AK-47’s, rocket launchers, and grenades.”

Hmmm. Don’t recall any of those ‘illegal’ weapons having been used in commission of a crime here in the U.S. Did a short search but didn’t invest too much time.

And the Orlando shooter and Sandy Hook kids weren’t ‘criminals’ prior to commission of their mass shooting acts. So in their case, it was access to ‘legal’ weapons used for an ‘illegal’ purpose. It’s why I’d like to see greater emphasis on smart weapons going forward.

I support the right to bear arms. Just suggesting limiting their capacities. Figured we’d disagree on the equivalence issue, but that’s okay.

“Willard, “Driving is a privileged” is only correct because it is vague. That makes it a strawman.”

Cap;

It is only correct because people voluntarily sign a contract with their state DMV surrendering their right to drive in exchange for the privilege to drive. It is the law of contracts that make the drivers licensing scheme legal. No one forces people to apply for a license, although the registration thing is a bit more forced simply because you cannot get a bill of sale from a dealership when purchasing a car, they send it directly to the DMV, but that can be junked if people want that.

The title of registration can junked and the bill of sale can be demanded I meant to say. Still, the bill of sale thing is difficult because some states microfiche the receipt and then destroy the hard copy.

It has been awhile since I followed the topic, but as I recall there are two problems.

1) the technology still isn’t mature enough. Firearms deliver a fair amount of shock to the component pieces, though that issue is addressable. But the one they haven’t solve yet is reliability. The thing about a firearm is it has to work every time you need to use it. Nothing like drawing your weapon and realizing it won’t fire because the smart chip isn’t working as it should.

2) cost. I understand this feature adds considerably to the cost of a firearm. Now your gun control supporter (and your liberal fascist politician who wants to limit your access) will think that is fine, as it acts as a form of limits to access in itself.

Issues in part: “And yet, these guns are not mass-produced or sold in the United States, in part because of fears they are a backdoor to greater gun control.” (Mass production leads to lower costs).
“So why can’t you buy a smart gun in the United States today? One reason is gun-shop owners won’t sell them. When one Maryland dealer announced he would try to sell one smart gun he was immediately attacked with email and phone call threats by people who believed that he could have triggered a New Jersey ban on regular handguns that don’t possess smart-gun technology.”

“Why are you trying to take my firearm and add something to it that’s going to make it more prone to failure?” he asks, referring to the possibility that technology might malfunction, like the batteries in the “smart” devices could drain, causing the gun to fail.”
Maintaining guns appropriately is the users responsibility.

And lastly: “But times are changing, says Conway. He believes a new generation of tech-savvy people, especially young parents, will embrace the hi-tech smart guns eventually, even overcoming the politics currently holding them back. “You cannot stop innovation. And this is an area where innovation is taking over…for technology and innovation, we have to ignore politics,” he tells Stahl.”
Laser sights were once ‘new technology’. Don’t they require proper maintenance?
“The green laser version of the Railmaster Pro requires one CR2 battery, which lasts for one full hour of constant activation. The red laser version will go two hours on the same battery. MSRP is $379 for the green version, $279 for the red. If you want to save a few bucks, you can get the non-Pro version of the Railmaster which is a laser only with no light. MSRP for those is $229 for the green and $159 for the red.” Requires maintenance, batteries, and are exposed to the same issues (lubrication) as any other gun: http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/red-vs-green-laser-sights/
Got a kick outta this: “There are a ton of accessories and modifications available out there for your self-defense handgun. Some are useful, but let’s be honest — there’s a lot of stuff you can do to your gun that’s not really going to make any measurable difference.”

““Sometimes,” said Agent Zamaloff, “guns out there,” he waved his right hand at 35th floor windows and the New York City streets below, “are found at a crime scene soon after being sold at a store. The gun, of course, was sold to someone who doesn’t have a criminal record—a straw purchaser. The straw purchaser buys the gun for someone who can’t. Sometimes a straw purchaser will even learn that a gun has turned up in a crime and will quickly report it as being stolen; either way, this gives us a chance to open and possibly broaden an investigation into what might be a number of individuals involved in a gunrunning ring.”

JPZ, “It is only correct because people voluntarily sign a contract with their state DMV surrendering their right to drive in exchange for the privilege to drive.”

this started thanks to, “It (gun ownership) should be a privilege, not a right, like driving. A privilege can be taken away by law.” JimD

Driving a vehicle on public roads is a privilege because the people surrendered what ever right they had for public safety and infrastructure maintenance. You only needed a driver’s license for access to public roads. You still don’t need a license for off road and most of the US at the time was basically off road. The driver’s license though has morphed into a default means of identification, which is surrendering more rights for convenience. Thanks to other regulations like safety restraints, people are even giving up even more rights like subjecting themselves to searches without reasonable cause. LEO even gives points to the most seat belt stops with bonus points for add on citations.

The point I was making to Willard is that JimD is wrong in his comparison because ownership is apples to operation oranges. Like a car you can own guns without a license, but how you use them is subject to limits where the public is concerned, so that right can be taken away by law along with a few others. If we went JimD’s way, gun owners could expect the same erosion of rights every time some warm and fuzzy wants to justify his miserable existence.

“The point I was making to Willard is that JimD is wrong in his comparison because ownership is apples to operation oranges. Like a car you can own guns without a license, but how you use them is subject to limits where the public is concerned, so that right can be taken away by law along with a few others. If we went JimD’s way, gun owners could expect the same erosion of rights every time some warm and fuzzy wants to justify his miserable existence.”

I understood that, Cap, and while I don’t completely agree with your assessment of how the licensing scheme came about, I do agree that ultimately people stopped challenging regulatory schemes in exchange for government paved roads. I also think your second paragraph is spot on, and the fact that people surrender their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is a terrific point that only further demonstrates the problem with all of this.

Also, thanks for recognizing why this thread mired in minutia regarding drivers licenses even exists, and it is because Jim D argued that gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right, just like driving. I would argue that Jim’s declaration is just one more argument against going along with the state licensing schemes. I will quibble and argue with people on just how much power government has to regulate a right, but I am certain that government has no lawful authority to deny and disparage a right, enumerated by constitution or not.

Prove what, that “driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States”? Roots did it already. Follow the breadcrumbs [n1], which you forgot to cite and quote, because tyranny.

I hope you’re not tasking me to prove that the fact that driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right doesn’t entail the falsity of your claim that driving is a right, not a privilege . I could dust up my Hintikka on the meaning of “is,” but I don’t think it’s necessary.

I also hope you’re not tasking me to channel the avatar of the Founding Slave owners or of Justice Scalia. This would imply a sense of proof that would go beyond mere critical thinking.

Speaking of which, your injunction reverses the burden of proof. The onus is on those who claim inconstitutionality to present their case on the relevant channels and win. Until that’s done, we have enough evidence to substantiate that: the right to travel has nothing to do with licensing drivers; drivers licenses are required by state laws; there’s nothing unconstitutional about that.

***

> Case law is a collection of rulings.

Reducing case law to a collection is a bit too litteralist to my own taste. In French, “case law” refers to “La règle du précédent” ou “stare decisis.” I could settle for “Legal principles enunciated and embodied in judicial decisions that are derived from the application of particular areas of law to the facts of individual cases,” which you can find online.

Stare decisis works from last to first, BTW. So the whole charade of going back in time, like Roots does and on which you jumped, is only of theorical interest. That Roots traces back driving as a privilege is enough to prove that is now fact unless you can find a decision that repeals it.

Furthermore, Roots may have missed a few cases too. After all, it has been written more than 10 years ago. Try to search for “It is well settled that the ability to drive and possess a driver’s license is a privilege, subject to reasonable regulation, not a right.”

Prove what, that “driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States”? Roots did it already. Follow the breadcrumbs [n1], which you forgot to cite and quote, because tyranny.

I hope you’re not tasking me to prove that the fact, conceded by Roots, that driving an automobile is a privilege, doesn’t entail the falsity of your claim that driving is a right. I could dust up my Hintikka on the meaning of “is,” but I don’t think it’s necessary.

I also hope you’re not tasking me to channel the avatar of the Founding Slave owners or of Justice Scalia. This would imply a sense of proof that would go beyond mere critical thinking.

Speaking of which, your injunction reverses the burden of proof. The onus is on those who claim inconstitutionality to present their case on the relevant channels and win. Until that’s done, we have enough evidence to substantiate that: the right to travel has nothing to do with licensing drivers; drivers licenses are required by state laws; there’s nothing unconstitutional about that.

“Prove what, that “driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States”? Roots did it already. ”

First of all, Root’s paper does not do what you claim it does and secondly, citing Root as your only authority and regarding your denial and disparagement of the right to drive is not proof. Try citing state constitutional mechanisms granting states the authority to deny and disparage rights. Or you could cite Abbot and Costello I suppose, couldn’t be any sillier than citing Root.

Reducing case law to a collection is a bit too litteralist to my own taste. In French, “case law” refers to “La règle du précédent” ou “stare decisis.” I could settle for “Legal principles enunciated and embodied in judicial decisions that are derived from the application of particular areas of law to the facts of individual cases,” which you can find online.

Stare decisis works from last to first, BTW. So the whole charade of going back in time, like Roots does and on which Jean-Paul jumped, is only of theorical interest. That Roots traces back driving as a privilege is enough to show that is now fact.

It’s possible that Roots may have missed a few cases. After all, it has been written more than 10 years ago. Searching for “It is well settled that the ability to drive and possess a driver’s license is a privilege, subject to reasonable regulation, not a right” should be enough to convince anyone of the fact that driving is not a right.

This fact has yet repealed by any Soverein Citizen exploit. If Jean-Paul wishes to step to the plate and repeal that fact, he’ll have to do a bit more than to write Internet comments.

> Root’s paper does not do what you claim it does and secondly, citing Root as your only authority

First, it’s Roots, Jean-Paul. How many time will I have to write “Roots” for you to get it?

Second, Roots does exactly what I say he does right after “Suddenly, within less than half a dozen years, a mighty change has taken place.” That’s on p. 7 out of 21. There’s a whole section on the birth of the driver’s license. For the impatient, here’s what happened in the 1920s:

No court after 1920 found the right to travel sufficient to strike down a driver license requirement.

And here what happened in the 50s:

Since 1950, no court has described driving an automobile as a “right.”

There are breadcrumbs in the footnotes, but that should be enough to see that the onus is on you to prove that driving a car is a right, a proof which might require that you, Jean-Paul, step to the plate and repeal that fact.

Sometimes, writing Internet comments just ain’t enough.

***

It’s possible that Roots may have missed a few cases. After all, it has been written more than 10 years ago. Try searching for “It is well settled that the ability to drive and possess a driver’s license is a privilege, subject to reasonable regulation, not a right.” Report.

Who died to make you King of Judy’s Jean-Paul? I was here before you were promoting constitutional exploits at your previous soverein citizen niche.

Furthermore, your trick is easily checkmated:

Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution; the status of a law, a procedure, or an act’s accordance with the laws or guidelines set forth in the applicable constitution. When one of these (laws, procedures, or acts) directly violates the constitution, it is unconstitutional. All the rest are considered constitutional until challenged and declared otherwise.

“First, it’s Roots, Jean-Paul. How many time will I have to write “Roots” for you to get it?”

That’s hysterical. How many times are you going to write Isaac, Willard?

“[Roger Isaac] Driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States.”

In Roots’ conclusion you will find declarations such as this:

“Americans living during the turn of the century generally regarded highway travel as a fundamental right.”

“Government impositions such as licenses or registration requirements were thought to violate constitutional protections, and horse and wagon travel were almost completely unregulated.”

Roots goes onto explain that the courts did change course from protecting the peoples right to drive to upholding the “boldest of traffic regulations”, but this change in jurisprudence in now way demonstrates that Roots himself has “assumed” nor has he “demonstrated” that “driving is a privilege and not a right”. If you can recognize that judges attitudes towards regulation and rights change over time why are you having such a hard time recognizing that this proclivity means we can easily go back to a time where the courts are once again protecting the peoples right to drive.

So I haven’t been following this sub-thread, which may actually be the longest in the history of Climate Etc., closely….but am I right in surmising that it has continued this long because Jean Paul insists that:

==> “Americans living during the turn of the century generally regarded highway travel as a fundamental right.””

Is the equivalent of saying that driving a car (presumably on an American highway) is a fundamental right?

I mean that can’t be it, can it? He can’t actually be holding on to the argument that “travel” = driving a car, for this long, can he?

The basis of Hill’s claims is uncertain. Although Hill devotes most of the complaint to describing how the City of Harvey and its officials exceeded the powers granted to them by Illinois law, he also includes vague, unsupported assertions about the constitutional rights to travel, to Equal Protection, to Due Process, and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Here’s where the challenge is met:

Although Hill attempts to couch some of his arguments in federal constitutional terms, they all boil down to violations of the Illinois constitution, statutes, and caselaw. Such violations do not infringe the federal constitution.

Do you have any real and relevant challenge to present, Jean-Paul, or will you continue to pull the Denizens’ legs?

By my count Justice Brennan uses the word “jurisdiction” or some variant of it ten times, while Justice Powell uses the word seventeen times.

This is not the second time you have linked to Hill v Harvey and maybe you didn’t read my last response to that, but your little summary of the case makes clear why Hill lost and that’s because he foolishly argued that the right to drive was a federally protected right. I also noted that I, on the other hand, have not pointed to the federal Constitution at all in this regard, but have relied upon the State of California constitution. Hill v Harvey helps to make my argument, genius.

> Nope. Those citations were a response to your erroneous claim that I held the burden of proof.

Since what I claimed follows from the very concept of constitutionality and can be read in the very first paragraph of a wiki entry, the “challenging jurisdiction!” war cry followed by the usual list of sovereign citizen cases might not suffice to overturn constitutionalism.

That the law can be challenged does not imply that it is. Case law usually make sure these challenges are met. Speaking of which, case law is more than a collection of rulings. Reducing case law to a collection is a bit too writtenalist to my own taste. In French, “case law” refers to “La règle du précédent” ou “stare decisis.” I could settle for “Legal principles enunciated and embodied in judicial decisions that are derived from the application of particular areas of law to the facts of individual cases,” which you can find online.

Stare decisis works from last to first, BTW. So the whole charade of going back in time, like Roots does and on which Jean-Paul jumped, is mostly of rhetorical interest. How Roots traces back driving as a privilege should be enough to show that is now fact.

Unless we can read a case where a person succeeded in challenging that fact, all we can expect is more pearl clutching.

> Nope. Those citations were a response to your erroneous claim that I held the burden of proof.

Since what I claimed follows from the very concept of constitutionality and can be read in the very first paragraph of thy Wiki entry, the “challenge jurisdiction!” war cry followed by the usual list of sovereign citizen cases might not suffice to overturn constitutionalism.

That the law can be challenged does not imply that it is, or that waving your arms suffices to really challenge it. Case law usually make sure these challenges are met. The less you put on your table, the easier it is to rebut the challenge. Let’s remind one that is relevant to our actual case:

I asked Jean-Paul to try searching on the Internet for “It is well settled that the ability to driver [etc]” and to Report. Since he’s now into “challenge jurisdiction” mode, which usually implies some kind of silly legal disobedience, when it doesn’t lead to paper terrorism, here’s the quote:

It is well settled that the ability to drive and possess a driver’s license is a privilege, subject to reasonable regulation, not a right.

Unless we can read a case where a person succeeded in challenging the fact that the ability to drive is a privilege, not a right, all we can expect is more pearl clutching.

***

There is also this other tidbit: Petitioner has failed to establish that the respondent DMV’s decision to deny relicensure was not made in accordance with lawful procedure; was affected by an error of law; or was arbitrary/capricious or an abuse of discretion. This should be enough to see that while it’s possible for a petitioner to “challenge” the law, unless he presents a case, he has none.

So the best Jean-Paul can argue is that every American citizen has a right to bug down the legal system with empty challenges.

At the heart of this issue is whether or not states have the lawful authority to determine what is and what is not a right. The importance of this issue in this site is because there are so many denizens who love to pass their judgments and make their recommendations on energy policy week after week and expect to be treated as if they know what they are talking about. There are plenty of denizens who come to this site to advocate the further expansion of both state and federal power to regulate the rights of the people and in a rational world, you would think those advocates at least have some understanding of law.

Take your own assertion disguised as a question:

“I mean that can’t be it, can it? He can’t actually be holding on to the argument that “travel” = driving a car, for this long, can he?”

In what universe do you come from that driving does not equate to travel? Are you seriously attempting to present this as everybody knows that driving does not mean travelling? If travel does not equal driving then why do government agencies equate the two?

In California, Caltrans is the agency responsible for highway, bridge and railway transportation planning, construction, and maintenance. On their home page is a section called “travel”:

So, here we are in what you dub the “longest sub-thread in the history of Climate etc., not because of what I am clinging on to – which would be reality – but because what advocates of the expansion of government regulatory power, like yourself, are clinging to. Are you truly going to continue with the argument that driving does not equate to travel even after knowing government agencies are equating the two?

And what follows is a bunch of hand waving, wringing and genuflection.

In terms of burden of proof. I am arguing that the state does not have any lawful authority to determine what is and what is not a right. This means, in terms of this debate, I am challenging their jurisdiction to declare driving a privilege and not a right.

I have correctly pointed to the state constitution of California and to the Declaration of Rights, including the latter part of Section 24. You remember that, don’t you? That’s the same section that you then quoted in its entirety while highlighting in bold the first sentence in order to claim that section does not apply.

The latter part of Section 24 reads:

“This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.”

This is one of the authorities I use to support my argument that the state has no authority to determine what is and what is not a right.

You have been steadfast in your avoidance of this fact, and somewhat creative in your attempt to misdirect people from that fact. Hell, it worked on Mosher and Joshua, but is that accomplishment?

When a governmental agency or act of legislation has been challenged the challenger does not have any burden of proof to prove the state does not have the jurisdiction. In law people are not expected to prove that which does not exist does not exist. Maybe that is the way it works in post normal science, but not in law.

You have the burden of proof to show how it is the state has the authority to declare driving a privilege and not a right, not I.

==> There are plenty of denizens who come to this site to advocate the further expansion of both state and federal power to regulate the rights of the people and in a rational world, you would think those advocates at least have some understanding of law. ==>

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t advocate for expansion of both state and federal power. I advocate for what I consider to be common sense policies that benefit the most people.

Take your own assertion disguised as a question:

==> In what universe do you come from that driving does not equate to travel? ==>

All driving is travel. Not all travel is driving. So they are not one and the same. They are not equal.

==> Are you seriously attempting to present this as everybody knows that driving does not mean travelling? ==>

No. I am seriously attempting to point out that you are conflating two distinct concepts in arguing that they are equivalent. More to the point, at the turn of the century, certainly Americans did not think that freedom to travel was the equivalent of freedom to drive a car, let alone to drive a car without restrictions. Even today, I am free to travel as I wish although there are legal restrictions on my right to drive a car.

==> If travel does not equal driving then why do government agencies equate the two? ==>

They don’t. I am free to travel about the country as I wish. I am not free to drive a car as I wish (without restrictions). Obviously, government agencies are not equating the two

==> …but because what advocates of the expansion of government regulatory power, like yourself, ==>

You don’t seem to understand my views. I am not an advocate of government regulatory power. I am an advocate of what I consider to sensible policies – for example policies that penalize people for driving drunk, that don’t allow toddlers to operate motorized vehicles on public, high speed highways, etc.

==> Are you truly going to continue with the argument that driving does not equate to travel ==>

Yes, because they aren’t one and the same.

==> even after knowing government agencies are equating the two? ==>

Actually, I think it’s rather obvious that they don’t. Government policies regulating travel are quite different than government policies regulating driving.

Speaking of Cali, there once was a man who refused to supply his social security number to renew his driver license, because deeply held religious beliefs:

Emphasizing the importance of automobiles in modern society, Miller contends that his right to interstate travel encompasses a fundamental right to drive a car.

[…]

The plaintiff’s argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.

There are two main problems with a Freedom Fighter approach to the law. The first is that arguing using case law does not cohere with going back to the Magna Carta: the revisability of case law undercuts any quest for original rights. The second is that constitutionality tops due process: while challenging jurisdiction may be a right, the onus is on the claimant to substantiate the claims upon which the challenge is being made.

This episode, while revelling in itself, is the perfect allegory for what C-l-i-m-a-t-e-B-a-l_l can become – a dystopian game where virtual agents indefinitely obstruct argumentative exchanges. If the Contrarian Matrix ever evolves into a virtualization of paper terrorism, I pity the scientists who will have to deal with these concerns.

Speaking of Cali, there once was a man who refused to supply his social security number to renew his driver license, because deeply held religious beliefs:

Emphasizing the importance of automobiles in modern society, Miller contends that his right to interstate travel encompasses a fundamental right to drive a car.

[…]

The plaintiff’s argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.

There are two main problems with a Freedom Fighter approach to the law. The first is that arguing using case law does not cohere with going back to the Magna Carta: the revisability of case law undercuts any quest for original rights. The second is that constitutionality tops due process: while challenging jurisdiction may be a right, the onus is on the claimant to substantiate the claims upon which the challenge is being made.

Jean-Paul’s parsomatics is required for his fight for citizen freedom. Your experience with Lucia’s, the genial parsomatics’ Mecca, should have prepared you for that kind of exercise. Appealing to common sense will lead you to the usual end, where Chewbacca roars that “you make no sense.”

The word “traveling” is important because it refers to a right. There’s no better way to connect driving with traveling than to make their meanings equivalent. This is why you can see loads of videos online where disobedient drivers insist that they’re not driving, but “traveling.”

Take Jean-Paul’s recent voluntaryst testament:

I am arguing that the state does not have any lawful authority to determine what is and what is not a right.

This is a red herring, because the state doesn’t have to determine what is or is not a right: all it has to do is to justify that its regulations don’t infringe on citizens’ rights, be they ordinary or sovereign. There’s a motherload of case law on that, simply because Jean-Paul’s trick is far from being new.

What may be new (at least it is to me) is the utter lack of due diligence. He claims that a text confirm his position when the very sentence of the abstract contradicts it. He claims that the text doesn’t show that driving is a privilege and not a right when more than the two thirds of that text establishes its historical basis. Heck, he can’t even write that author’s name properly, or even read it on the very first page!

Just take the latest expression of his legal stance:

I am challenging their jurisdiction to declare driving a privilege and not a right.

He’s not challenging anything here. To “challenge” any state jurisdiction is a speech act one simply can’t do here, at Judy’s. That’s a thing we do in the relevant court. The only challenge he could do here at Judy’s is to challenge Judy’s authority over her blog. Good luck with that.

To challenge California’s jurisdiction over its own roads, he’d need to create a legal case, say by going on the road and get himself arrested. Then he could try to pull the usual habeas corpus crap. Not only that, but he’ll need to provide reasons for his challenge, otherwise he’ll get dismissed in no time, just like all those who tried that trick before him – search for “utterly frivolous.” He could certainly try his “the right to travel as an enshrined right in the Constitution predates the Bill of Rights” doctrine and see how it goes. Again, best of luck.

Until and unless he or anyone else can show in court that road regulations are unconstitutional, they are indeed constitutional. That’s just a fact of the social reality he lives in. There should be better ways to deal with that fact than to create a social movement where people follow thought leaders like him who can’t even articulate their position properly.

I mean, arwaving to before the Bill of Rights and to case law. Come on.

“I advocate for what I consider to be common sense policies that benefit the most people.”

Lipstick on a pig.

“Take your own assertion disguised as a question:

==> In what universe do you come from that driving does not equate to travel? ==>

All driving is travel. Not all travel is driving. So they are not one and the same. They are not equal.”

Pay close attention to what you wrote. I asked you what universe you come from that driving does not equate to travel and your first response is to admit that in fact it does, followed by silly equivocation.

The whole argument of travel was brought into the fray by Willard, not I. Willard was attempting to distract and confuse, and it worked, didn’t it?

“More to the point, at the turn of the century, certainly Americans did not think that freedom to travel was the equivalent of freedom to drive a car, let alone to drive a car without restrictions.”

At the turn of which century? At the turn of the 20th century? Nope. At the turn of the 21st century? Maybe. Either way, it is irrelevant. Until the Roe v. Wade American’s apparently believed that abortion was not a right, and frankly many still do, but the law has something else to say about the matter. McCain and Feingold slapped each other on the back and strutted about proudly proclaiming they had “reformed” election campaigns, but Citizens United disagreed and used the law to stop the FEC from chilling speech. Many American’s are still outraged at that more recent ruling and do not equate political finance as speech, the law, however, has something entirely different to say on the matter.

“They don’t. I am free to travel about the country as I wish. I am not free to drive a car as I wish (without restrictions).”

If you are not free to drive then you are not free to “travel about the country as (you) wish” Your equivocation is really sloppy.

“You don’t seem to understand my views. I am not an advocate of government regulatory power. I am an advocate of what I consider to sensible policies – for example policies that penalize people for driving drunk, that don’t allow toddlers to operate motorized vehicles on public, high speed highways, etc.”

All of these can be implemented and enforced without any licensing and registration scheme and there is no need for a DMV.

You can cling to the “travel” equivocation all you want. As I told you in my first response to you, at the heart of this issue is whether or not the states have the lawful authority to determine what is and what is not a right. That, Joshua, you have ignored so you could have your travel dance. What lawful mechanism, if any, exists to give states the authority to determine what is and what is not a right? It’s not a hard question and common sense will get you the answer, Josh.

The public does not need permission to drive on public roads. Anyone driving on the roads would be a part of that public and they are merely enjoying their right to freely access those public roads. What they cannot do is drive on someone’s private property without permission.

“It should be a privilege, not a right, like driving. A privilege can be taken away by law.”

Driving is a right not privilege. The only thing that makes the DMV’s declaration that driving is a privilege and not a right is the voluntary contractual agreement people make with the DMV when registering their vehicles and obtaining licenses to drive. A license, of course, is the grant of permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal, but driving is not illegal and it is not so because it is a right.

I live in California so let’s use their constitution to demonstrate that driving is actually a right. Let’s begin with the Declaration of Rights Section 1:

“All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

Now let’s examine the latter part of Section 24:

“This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny
others retained by the people.”

Driving falls well within the scope of “enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” and due to the latter part of Section 24 no state official or department has the lawful authority to impair or deny rights not enumerated in that constitution. So, the only thing that makes the DMV’s little licensing scheme legal is the voluntary contractual nature of it.

It was a mistake for people to go along with the licensing scheme of motor vehicles and you are handily demonstrating why it was such a profound mistake to let the scorpion we call government to hang out on our shoulders.

Driving is a right and people can take that right back any time they want…sure, they’ll have to fight for that right, but it is their right to fight for.

So you are opposed to drivers licenses and think anyone has the right to drive? How about guns? Do felons have the right to buy them legally under your scheme? Should people have licenses or not? Do you think of your views as rather extreme?

“So you are opposed to drivers licenses and think anyone has the right to drive? How about guns? Do felons have the right to buy them legally under your scheme? Should people have licenses or not? Do you think of your views as rather extreme?”

Yes and yes. Yes. Yes. It depends. No I think yours are.

The word license is derived from the word licentious. The legal definition of license is the grant of permission from the proper authority to do what is otherwise illegal to do. Licenses permit licentiousness. In the past, people using government to bully others declared miscegenation licentious and legislated acts prohibiting interracial marriage. These acts originated in England and were transported to America. The birth of the marriage license lies in this history. Slave owners who wanted to marry one of their slaves would lobby their local magistrate for a license in order to circumvent anti-miscegenation acts. Indeed, Black’s Law Dictionary defines marriage license as such:

“A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.”

That is the sordid history of why marriage licenses even exist, Jim. What say you? Should people have to seek permission from the state in order to marry? People, of course, have the right to get married and need no permission from the state to do so, but I suppose you think that is just “extreme”.

The only licensing schemes that should be in play are those that had compelling arguments as to why the scheme should exist, and when discussing licensing directives the word “scheme” is wholly appropriate, but when discussing freedom Jim, the word “scheme” is inappropriate. Owning and operating a nuclear power plant? I can make a compelling case as to why a licensing scheme should exist to limit and regulate those who would own and operate nuclear power plant. Transporting toxic materials? I can make a compelling argument as to why a licensing scheme should exist, but drive to grandmother’s house? Please.

All people have the right to life and no one needs any license in order to exercise their right to life. For some, at some point, exercising their right to life also meant defending their right to life and when they did this they needed no license to do so (although some might have to withstand a trial and argue self defense). The right to defend one’s own life and property is an unalienable right.

Unalienable means non transferable. People have the right to keep and bear arms Jim, because they have the right to life and tragically, because their are villainous beings out there who will threaten the liberty of law abiding people. The 2nd Amendment is Two centuries and a quarter old but you hysterically accuse those who zealously defend that amendment of being “extremists”. Apparently you are under the impression that radical ideas like repealing the 2nd Amendment don”t count as “extreme”.

So you don’t think drivers licenses are needed. People can just take to the road without any lessons, age restrictions, or any knowledge of road rules and freely endanger the citizens’ lives according to your system. If they have an accident due to their lack of knowledge or plain drunkenness, they can’t have their driving revoked and just get back on the road and do it again. Same with guns and felons who keep shooting at people. You want to live in that world rather than a civilized country. Like I said, interesting, and extreme. Good luck if you can find a country like that.

Jean Claude Zippo writes: “Why is a license required on a public road?”

To provide a margin of safety for other users of the public space. I don’t have a problem with licences being required to carry guns in public places either including public parks open to hunting. For the same reason it provides a margin of safety for other users of the public space.

A driver’s license can be revoked or suspended. DUI arrests often result in this. It is well known (except maybe to Jim D), that a significant percentage of DUI related accidents and deaths are caused by repeat offenders. People whose license to drive has been suspended or revoked. Driving on a suspended or revoked license is also against the law. These people make up only a tiny portion of the driving public, but wreck a large amount of havoc. See how effective laws are? Particularly when people choose to ignore them.

So with this rather good analogy to provide a track record, Jim D wants us to believe that strict controls on firearms will prevent firearms related tragedies. Because we all know, when it comes to guns, EVERYONE will abide by the law.

Devin Springless wrote: “To provide a margin of safety for other users of the public space.”

Yeah, and unicorn buggies should be registered too.

“In fact, during their first six months of solo driving, newly licensed drivers are about eight times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes than are more experienced drivers (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2004). Even after more than six months licensed to drive alone, teens are two to three times more likely to be in a fatal crash than are the most experienced drivers. The overall numbers are alarming— by one analysis, more than 100,000 young people (ages 16 to 24) will die in vehicle crashes between 2003 and 2012 if the crash rates do not change…”

“People can just take to the road without any lessons, age restrictions, or any knowledge of road rules and freely endanger the citizens’ lives according to your system.”

Licensing schemes do not ensure compliance. People were taking lessons to drive before any Department of Motor Vehicle existed and people can take those lesson’s long after such agencies are defunct. In terms of age restrictions, you don’t need a licensing scheme in order to impose those restrictions. According to your system Jim, 32,675 died in automobile collisions in 2014, 32,719 in 2013, 33,561 in 2012, 32,479 in 2011, 32,999 in 2010, 33,883 in 2009 and on and on and on…fraudulently selling safety where none can be reasonably promised, just like in climate change.

“If they have an accident due to their lack of knowledge or plain drunkenness, they can’t have their driving revoked and just get back on the road and do it again.”

■ Nineteen percent of motor vehicle fatalities involved
drivers with invalid licenses.
■ Drivers with invalid licenses comprised 13 percent of
all drivers involved in fatal crashes.
■ Motorcycle operators involved in fatal motor vehicle
crashes were the most likely to have invalid licenses.
■ Large-truck and bus drivers were the least likely to
have invalid licenses.
■ Nighttime crashes were more likely to involve drivers
with invalid licenses.
■ Male drivers involved in fatal crashes had invalid
licenses more frequently than did female drivers.
■ Other than those under age 16, drivers 21 to 34 had
the highest proportion of invalid licenses in fatal
crashes.

“No, you could just give up with the whole drivers license idea because of a few bad apples. It was a good thing to try, but we have to abandon it because some people don’t respect it, right?”

Nope. We abandon it because driving is a right and not a privilege and licensing schemes should be restrained and only implemented when some necessary licentiousness requires it. Driving is not licentious. The driver license scheme was not a “good thing to try”, it was a blatant power grab.

We are, after all, discussing drivers licensing only because you sought to compare them with gun’s and declare gun ownership a privilege and not a right.

“OK, in what way does not requiring licenses improve road safety? Or will it make it worse and you just don’t care.”

Liability does not get erased just because there is no licensing scheme. The stiffer the penalties are for the liable the more likely those liable will take road safety seriously. It’s not as if vehicular homicide becomes legal if we abandon the DMV’s.

“Do you consider food safety, water safety, and drug safety standards to be government power grabs too? The government sets safety standards and builds and maintains those roads you use.”

Roads? Well that Trumps libertarianism, don’t it? Government has mastered the technology of roads so what am I even thinking, right?

Food safety, water safety and drug safety standards can be made in a free market. I get that you don’t trust that because the free market is filled with people and people can’t be trusted, I just don’t get why you don’t see that government too is filled with people and people…well, they can’t be trusted.

“Do you consider food safety, water safety, and drug safety standards to be government power grabs too? The government sets safety standards and builds and maintains those roads you use.”

I don’t believe you are asking a question in good faith, or actually seeking to improve your knowledge. Correct me if I’m wrong.

As I understand it, the matter at hand related to rights and privileges, initially about guns.

We see the usual Wayward Wandering Warmist approach to a simple discussion. Deny, divert, confuse. Can you at least make even a feeble attempt (I know, I know – I’m probably overestimating the Warmist ability to even rise to the level of “feeble attempt”), to address the initial matter – guns, I believe, or driving licenses, as a corollary.

I suppose you and your kind are on control of the US. This would certainly explain why it now looks like a debt ridden, poverty stricken, blustering but largely impotent bully, even an object of derision, to the roughly 95% of the world’s population who do not live in the US, rather than the well respected manufacturing powerhouse it once was. A pity.

Maybe that’s what happens when you ignore fact, and replace it with fantasy. Mission accomplished? Bring it on? Failure is not an option? Too big to fail?

MF, read what JPZ is saying and see if you agree with him. He won’t let you ban felons from driving or even getting guns. OK with you? Next he will say terrorist suspects can also get guns even as we learn a lesson why not.

> News flash Jim, it is a right, whether you think it shouldn’t or not. If you disagree, get an amendment process going.

It’s rather the other way around:

Driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right, according to the prevailing laws of every jurisdiction of the United States. However, this was not always the case. When automobiles were first introduced around the turn of the twentieth century, drivers relied on common law traditions that protected the right of every person to travel upon public roadways without a license. Courts repeatedly wrote of an individual’s “right to travel” by automobile and struck down regulations aimed at limiting the liberties of automobile drivers on constitutional grounds. With the passage of time, however, automobile regulators generally prevailed in legislative halls and courtrooms. Today, the public has accepted a degree of travel regulation which would have seemed almost tyrannical to nineteenth century Americans. This paper analyzes this change in common law and suggests that even if most Americans are unaware of it, the change represents a substantial loss of liberty.

Willard, “Unless you claim that the Founding Slave Owners foretold motorways, you better leave that to Freedom fightin’ constitutionalists.”

Since driver’s licensing is a state function, I guess the founding fathers anticipated just about all they needed. You don’t need a driver’s license to own a car or even operate a car, you just need a license, registration and proof of insurance to drive a car on public roads. So a driver’s license is a lot like a concealed carry permit :)

“Exactly, what are you thinking? Do you believe in laws to protect people and to make infrastructure safe?”

Law is rooted in the rights of the people. From those rights does law spring forth. You, my brother, have the right to life. It follows that since you have the right to life that you have the right to defend that life. It follows that I too have these rights, as does everyone else, and it follows that we also have a right to form an institution to defend our rights, and from this just government springs forth. Without that there is no justice.

The purpose of government is to protect and defend the rights of the people, not fight to take them away in the name of safety. That’s the purpose of tyranny.

The conflict in your view comes with how you want felons to still drive and have guns because you care more about felons’ “rights” than about public safety. Felons who abuse your “rights” don’t give them up.

> Law is rooted in the rights of the people. From those rights does law spring forth. You, my brother, have the right to life. It follows that since you have the right to life that you have the right to defend that life. It follows that I too have these rights, as does everyone else, and it follows that we also have a right to form an institution to defend our rights, and from this just government springs forth. Without that there is no justice.

Actually, Jean-Paul, there could be Justice without the Law. There could even be Justice defined otherwise than any concept of “rooting” – search for “legal positivism” if you’re so inclined. There are even countries where the Founding Slave Owners Exalted Writings have no jurisdiction.

That being said, has your laïus ever been useful when a police patrol pulled you off and asked for your driver’s license?

Actually, Willard, no there cannot and even with law justice is an ideal we only just keep striving towards. Justice is not even recognizable in any positive sense. We find it much easier to recognize justice in its absence. The family of a murdered child or sibling recognizes justice in its absence and the justice they seek is remedy for their loss and injury.

For every injury there is a remedy and where there is no remedy there is no injury. Even under this legal maxim, justice can only be limited to that which can offer remedy, and only shrugs for those who have suffered loss without injury. Justice is necessarily rooted in law, and law is rooted in rights.

“That being said, has your laïus ever been useful when a police patrol pulled you off and asked for your driver’s license?”

I drive cops nuts, but frankly I do so not because I rely upon discours de décision, but instead politely and respectfully ask them to call the Sheriff’s department. This is always met with the question why and I always explain, very politely and briefly, the I require someone with actual jurisdiction. They always reply “The Sheriff’s don’t have jurisdiction here, we do.” To which I always reply: “The Sheriff is duly elected by the people and therefore answerable to the people and has a constitutional mandate, and I am invoking that jurisdiction.” Then they generally change their strategy with me and it varies how the get to where they’re going, but where they inevitably go is to tell me to have a nice day.

Full disclosure, I do not own a car. I refuse to submit to their licensing scheme for bicycles and so this would be the conversations had before they let me go. I was cited once years ago and had the citation dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. It took less than five minutes to obtain the dismissal and it didn’t look like any of those nutty “free man on the land” videos. Hell, I didn’t even cite any of the citations I cited in my reply to you. All I needed was The Declaration of Rights from the California constitution, Section 1 and the latter part of Section 24. The judge asked me if I wanted a dismissal and I clarified for lack of jurisdiction and he dismissed the case.

> Hell, I didn’t even cite any of the citations I cited in my reply to you.

I hope you never have to do it, otherwise people may even read it starting with the beginning, e.g.:

The jitney bus act, Rem. Code, SS 5562-37 et seq., requiring city motor carriers of passengers for hire to give a security bond executed by a qualified surety company, does not violate the constitutional prohibitions against depriving one of property without due process of law, or of the equal protection of the laws, notwithstanding the act is prohibitive from the fact that there are no qualified surety companies from which such bonds are obtainable; since the state in the exercise of its police power can prohibit the use of the streets as a place of private business.

***

> All I needed was The Declaration of Rights from the California constitution, Section 1 and the latter part of Section 24

Here it is:

SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

In criminal cases the rights of a defendant to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, to the assistance of counsel, to be personally present with counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy, to not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, to not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual punishment, shall be construed by the courts of this State in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States, nor shall it be construed to afford greater rights to minors in juvenile proceedings on criminal causes than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny
others retained by the people.

It might be wise for the Judge to save himself to trouble of (a) recalling that section and (b) wondering how this this has anything to do with driving.

(b) Except as provided in subpart G of this part, a person is qualified to drive a motor vehicle if he/she—
(1) Is at least 21 years old;
(2) Can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with
the general public […]
(3) Can, by reason of experience, training, or both, safely operate the type of commercial motor vehicle he/ she drives;
(4) Is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle […]
(5) Has a currently valid commercial motor vehicle operator’s license issued only by one State or jurisdiction;

(Let’s see if I can get through the second part of my pending comment.)

> All I needed was The Declaration of Rights from the California constitution, Section 1 and the latter part of Section 24

Here it is:

SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

In criminal cases the rights of a defendant to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, to the assistance of counsel, to be personally present with counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy, to not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, to not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual punishment, shall be construed by the courts of this State in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States, nor shall it be construed to afford greater rights to minors in juvenile proceedings on criminal causes than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny
others retained by the people.

(Let’s see if I can get through the second part of my pending comment.)

> All I needed was The Declaration of Rights from the California constitution, Section 1 and the latter part of Section 24

Here it is:

SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

In criminal cases the rights of a defendant to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, to the assistance of counsel, to be personally present with counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy, to not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, to not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual punishment, shall be construed by the courts of this State in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States, nor shall it be construed to afford greater rights to minors in juvenile proceedings on criminal causes than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny
others retained by the people.

Willard, operator has a legal distinction and owner has a legal distinction. You don’t need to be an operator to be an owner and depending on whether the operation is recreation, farming, fishing, for hire or just in certain situations like an emergency, licensing may or may not be required. You don’t need a license to operate or own a vehicle, but different vehicles in different situations require licensing. You don’t need a license to operate a moped on most local and state roads. You don’t need a license to operate vehicles off road.

That compares rather well with guns, your property your business, public property, public business.

“motor vehicle operator’s license” means a license issued by a State authorizing an individual to operate a motor vehicle on public streets, roads, or highways.

The distinction matters to legiferate over cases like when you push a car off a cliff without turning on the engine:

A person “operates” a motor vehicle not only while doing all of the well-known things that drivers do as they travel on a street or highway, but also when doing any act which directly tends to set the vehicle in motion. The law is that a person is “operating” a motor vehicle whenever he or she is in the vehicle and intentionally manipulates some mechanical or electrical part of the vehicle — like the gear shift or the ignition — which, alone or in sequence, will set the vehicle in motion.

> [O]perator has a legal distinction and owner has a legal distinction

Indeed they have, Cap’n, but it’s the distinction between operating and driving that you invoked at first that matters.

The 49 U.S.C. 30301 states: ““motor vehicle operator’s license” means a license issued by a State authorizing an individual to operate a motor vehicle on public streets, roads, or highways.”

The distinction matters to legiferate over cases like when you push a car off a cliff without turning on the engine. (Search for “operation of a motor vehicle.”)

Kids may not need a license to ride their mopeds. Not because they “operate” without driving, but because it’s a type of vehicle for which you don’t need a license, presumably for reasons similar to those invoked by Jim D. They still drive them, most of the times.

“The conflict in your view comes with how you want felons to still drive and have guns because you care more about felons’ “rights” than about public safety. Felons who abuse your “rights” don’t give them up.”

Jim;

This is just a totally lame straw man. Let me be clear so if you misrepresent my argument again I will just call out the lie for what it is.

My stance on that issue is this: If a felon shouldn’t drive or own a gun then they shouldn’t be released from prison. When that felon is in prison their right to drive and keep and bear arms has been has been demonstrably chilled. Once they are released from prison they have served their time, this I have already said and you ignore it once please don’t ignore again, once they’ve served their time their debt is paid and they go back to being the people, meaning they enjoy their rights just the same as anyone else.

If you have a compelling argument that someone should never be “allowed” to enjoy their right to drive or keep and bear arms, then you have a compelling argument for life imprisonment not the denial and disparagement of rights.

“#FreedomFighters can sure enjoy their pyrrhic victories, as long as they concede that we’re far from the sovereign citizenry first advertized.”

Willard, you and your sad, sad, so tragically sad straw man arguments. I am not claiming any “sovereign citizenry” as the term is a misnomer. Citizenry is a privilege granted by governments. You also misrepresented what I said by simply pointing out I don’t own a car.

I walk and ride and the public sidewalks and streets of Los Angeles with out any identification from the DMV. I do not have any identification from the DMV. I am not under the scheme of the DMV, and this is why I tend to drive cops nuts, and in the end this has been why they wind up walking away telling me to have a nice day. You can call that a Pyrrhic victory if you want, but I don’t really think your straw man’s are working.

Hey Jean Clod you need a license to drive on a public road because you don’t own or control the road. If it’s a private road and you own it then no license required. If it’s private road and someone else owns it then you need their permission. If it’s a public road then you need the public’s permission. That permission is, by laws duly enacted under the constitution, called a driver’s license.

The more guns there are, the more people die from them. Less guns, less deaths. Your argument amounts to – America’s loopholes have been so bad in the past, it is not worth plugging them as soon as possible.

“The more guns there are, the more people die from them. Less guns, less deaths. Your argument amounts to – America’s loopholes have been so bad in the past, it is not worth plugging them as soon as possible.”

Had you argued “less guns, less gun deaths” you might have fashioned a plausible argument, but noooooo….you had to go the way you did. Less guns will not reduce deaths caused by automobile accidents, it will not reduce heart disease and cancer and it will not reduce murders where a knife is used and by the way, according to the FBI knives were used in homicide more than rifles:

You need a hell of a lot more than that, brother. You have to be able to recognize nuance. For example, the FBI statistics I linked demonstrate that homicide by knives outnumbered – by far – homicide by rifle, however your two third claim is loosely accurate. Clearly most homicides are caused by hand guns and I am not aware of any study that demonstrates that hand guns are more efficient at killing than knives, are you?

There is also the fact that close to two thirds of American’s who die by gun did so by suicide. Again, I am not aware of any study that quantifies the success rate of suicide attempts by gun versus knife or other means, are you?

JimD, “The more guns there are, the more people die from them. Less guns, less deaths. Your argument amounts to – America’s loopholes have been so bad in the past, it is not worth plugging them as soon as possible.”

The more hospitals there are the more people that die from them. About 800,000 died from medical error and HCA last year.

In the US the guns that people are wanting to ban are “assault weapons” which is a bit confused. Semi-auto imitations of assault rifles like the AR15 would be in the rifle category of statistics and all rifles used in homicides accounted for less than 300 of the roughly 9000 gun related homicides. Liberals like to use the “gun violence” pseudo-statistic which lumps suicide, justifiable homicide, domestic violence etc. to get a bigger number to play with, but these headline grabbing events amount to less than 1% of “gun violence” and about 1% of actual gun homicides. About half of gun homicides are domestic situations involving wives, husbands kids and “significant others”.

knives, blunt objects and personal weapons were all used more than “assault weapons” as murder weapons. Handguns are still the most popular weapon for crime and old revolvers are slowly being replaced by semi-automatics, most of which would not be included in “assault weapons”.

Since guns are durable goods and the gun control laws don’t include house by house confiscation like in Jamaica, which has a very large gun homicide rate, the impact of gun control legislation will be negligible for a few generations.

The original “assault weapon” legislation had the unintended consequence of increasing the number and types of “assault weapons” available and inspired thousands of do it yourself projects aimed at converting various products into lethal weapons. Converting “replica” weapons into functioning weapons is now a cottage industry in places like the UK and Australia.

“The more guns there are, the more people die from them. Less guns, less deaths.”

Pure speculation. I can easily say “More guns, less crime” and base that upon the number of potential burglars and rapists who won’t break into a home because the occupants are likely to be armed.

If there were some Pulse patrons in Orlando who were carrying concealed weapons the perp would have been gunned down quickly and the death toll much lower. In fact it is reasonable to assume the perp may not have even attempted the act if he’d had reason to believe he’d be shooting into a crowd who could shoot back.

It transpires that the Yousuf family emigrated from India to Guyana four generations ago; Imran Yousuf’s paternal grandfather is Muslim, and his grandmother is Hindu, so his father Rasheed is a mix of both ethnicities.

> So talking about what Imran Yousuf ‘s Muslim grandfather was, and not what Yousuf is […]

You forget Yousuf’s father who is both Muslim and Hindu, Glenn.

Fancy that.

If Dividing Donald got his way at the time when Yousuf’s father was about to come to America, Yousuf’s father may not have been American, and his Americanized son would not have saved more persons than most Denizens.

Garzê Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture ([…]) — is an autonomous prefecture of China occupying the western arm of Sichuan. It is sometimes spelled “Kardzé” and “Garzin” by non-government sources.

The prefecture’s area is 151,078 square kilometres (58,332 sq mi). The population is approximately 880,000, with Tibetans accounting for 77.8% of the total population. The capital city of Garzê is Kangding (Dardo).

This is an interesting program from Germany on the U.S. elections that a friend sent me.

The verdict: Trump all the way.

Hillary they dub “Killary” because of her extreme hawkishness.

Of the 19 candidates that started in the primaries, Killary has received more money than anyone from the military-industrial complex. Trump ranks 17th, so has no obligation to continue with the endless war that Killary is such a fan of.

The United States is in the throes of an imperial crisis, not unlike Great Britain experienced around the turn of the last century.

Henry Steele Commager is entirely right: “If we subvert world order and destroy world peace we must inevitably subvert and destroy our own political institutions first.”

Lord Cromer spoke of the much-feared boomerang effect of the “government of subject races” on the home government during Britain’s imperialist era. Rule by violence in faraway lands would end by affecting the government of England, and the last “subject race” would be the English themselves.

The Union/Environmentalist breakup is big. Union members finally got their “leadership” to notice that Hillary plans to put union coal miners out of work, union oil/gas field workers out of work, union autoworkers out of work, steel workers, concrete, construction, airline, trucking (teamsters) and pretty much any manufacturing.
Nothing is shifting manufacturing to China faster than the “global climate action” plans that exempt China while jacking up the price of energy in the west.
Much of this is shift is thanks to the fact that a large share of organized labor is now government workers rather than manufacturing. Dems think they can dump private sector workers now. The government employees unions have an odd strategy. They expect to be highly paid with guaranteed pensions from tax payer money while the tax base decreases and the industries they were hired to regulate are shuttered. Ask Detroit bus drivers how that worked out for their pensions.

See state of Illinois and City of Chicago. And the gov unions got a state constitutional amendment saying their pensions can never be reduced. So the state is going under. No Silicon Valley wealth like saving California from the same fate.

Illinois is going to be a fun one. Chicago taxpayers just got hit with a half-billion tax increase to pay for employees who no longer work for the city. They’re paying more for less (and what they’re paying for is a benefit to employees who ran some pretty awful services before they retired).
Greece was a real eye-opener. Promised “government employees” more money than your tax receipts? No problem, force other governments to “lend” you the money and don’t pay it back. What’s that, they won’t lend you more money? Crazy talk, just crazy, they have to!
Of course someone always comes along and says some variant of “Greece’s problem is that their residents dodge taxes.”
Surprise, surprise, there is a limit to what people will pay. Lamborghini’s problem is that to many people “dodge” their request to buy $200,000 cars.

From the article:
…
This time, however, Spain’s Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) looks likely to be beaten not just by the centre-right Popular party but also by the far-left Unidos Podemos movement. According to recent surveys, the once mighty PSOE will come a distant third in this month’s general election, with just 20 per cent of the vote. Not only will it not lead the next government. Barring an unlikely late surge, it will not even lead the Spanish left.
The decline of the PSOE is, of course, part of a broader story. In Germany, the Social Democrats are polling around historic lows, as are the French Socialists under their unpopular president. Pasok has turned into a splinter group in the Greek parliament. In the UK, meanwhile, the venerable Labour party has undergone something of a reverse takeover, and is currently led by a politician who spent his entire career on the party’s leftist fringe. With few exceptions — Italy being the most obvious — the European centre-left finds itself in the midst of a long and painful retreat.
…http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1265561c-3215-11e6-ad39-3fee5ffe5b5b.html#axzz4Bg04bk8d

Tony, former governor of New Mexico. Libertarian Party presidential nominee. Libertarian party is so small as to be irrelevant except to themselves. Main platform is extreme small government. Sen. Paul Rand is a Libertarian, yet he ran for the Republican presidential nomination.

“Who is Gary johnson and why is he suddenly in the presidential race?”

This is Johnson’s second presidential bid. He ran in 2012 and got 0.99% of the popular vote which was actually a record for the Libertarian party. This isn’t sudden for Johnson, only for those who are not aware of who he is until now.

It was only moments after I finally decided to register as a Libertarian, staring down at my voter registration forms and it occurred to me that they could never rise to power without sacrificing their principles. Maybe one term here and there, but if they wanted to stay in power they couldn’t do it by being libertarian.

Of course, there are plenty of government agencies that need to be dismantled and I would argue that administrative law in general needs to be treated with great suspicion and extreme prejudice. So, maybe, if there were actually elected officials that were doing just that, it could take longer than a single term here and there…but people love to vote themselves “free” stuff, so probably ain’t ever gonna happen.

From the article:
…
The campaign for Britain to leave the European Union led in a fifth opinion poll published over the past 24 hours, showing Prime Minister David Cameron is foundering in his efforts to persuade voters to reject a so-called Brexit. The pound fell to a two-month low.
…

Silly for Faustino’s Poms to do all that Spitfire and Churchill stuff…just to end up at one end of a dreary Germany Empire run by an ill-favoured hausfrau and a bunch of perpetually worried and worrisome Eurocrats. Brexit!

I have not voted for the presidential nominee from either of the two major parties since 1980 (Reagan – I did not vote for him in 84). The reason why I do not is because I refuse to cast a ballot for anyone I deem unfit for office.

Even so, this is the first time in my lifetime I actually thought that I am more fit to be president than either of the prospective nominees. My thoughts in 2016 can be expressed thusly: Donald Trump is a clown/buffoon/liar who also happens to be the only person saying some of things that need to be said (albeit alongside a mountain of gibberish) AND HE’S STILL ten times better than Ma Clinton and a hundred times better than Barack T Firefly.

As to the left and their boundless hypocrisy/foolishness:

I recently watched a president who called rural Christians “bitter clingers” lecture us that we don’t disparage religious groups in the USA.

I recently watched a presidential candidate who happens to be under FBI investigation advise us that due process must be suspended for people under FBI investigation.

I recently watched a “comedian” who claims a record of “truthiness” make a presentation where he equated Donald Trump to Nazis – apparently completely clueless that Hitler was a socialist who confiscated firearms from the citizenry.

From the article:
…
Vote Leave said over subsequent sessions of Parliament it wanted to introduce:
Finance Bill – This would abolish the 5% rate of VAT on household energy bills by amending the Value Added Tax Act 1994. It would be paid for by savings from the UK’s contributions to the EU budget, Vote Leave said
National Health Service (Funding Target) Bill – The NHS would receive a £100m per week real-terms cash “transfusion”, to be paid for by savings from leaving the EU
Asylum and Immigration Control Bill – “To end the automatic right of all EU citizens to enter the UK”
Free Trade Bill – The UK leaves the EU’s “common commercial policy” to “restore the UK government’s power to control its own trade policy”
European Communities Act 1972 (Repeal) Bill – The European Communities Act 1972, “the legal basis for the supremacy of EU law in the UK”, will be repealed. “The EU Treaties will cease to form part of UK law and the European Court’s jurisdiction over the UK will end,” said Vote Leave.
…http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36534802

From the article:
…
FBI agents were helpless to stop Mateen because of the professional guardrails imposed by Obama’s deputies, said Philip B. Haney, who was one of the first investigators at the office that would grow into the Department of Homeland Security.

The guardrails were officially established in the 2012 “The FBI Guiding Principles: Touchstone Document on Training.” The guidelines say;
…
Based on these restrictive standards, it would have been virtually impossible to justify an FBI investigation or extensive surveillance of Mateen, even though a simple Internet search shows Mateen’s close ties to radical mosques, Haney said.
…http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/14/obamadhsfarce/

The Republicans are opposed to gun purchases being checked against watch lists, so that would be dead on arrival. But there is an ongoing Dem effort in this direction, so we may finally get some sanity checks in gun purchases.

They do get guns, and there is no way to trace them and also resistance to any method of tracing weapons back to their last legal owner like cars. All you get is a black market fueled by bad dealers. The guns go from factories to dealers to the streets and there is no way to trace them back. It is a ridiculous system, or lack thereof.

It isn’t going to happen. It shouldn’t happen. Even though I think you are right that it seems like a common sense thing to do. The problem is you reduce protected rights to the whims of the current government. That precedent would be a dangerous one to set.

Call it imagination if you want. There’s no reason people on watch lists can’t have due process before their rights are taken away. On the other hand maybe you are right and we should also limit where they can worship and who they can associate with as they appeal their placement on the list?

Jim, well duh, if they can associate with anyone they want they can find someone radical that isn’t on the list to buy their weapons for them. We need to limit their rights and wall them off from society. At least having access to phones and internet are not protected rights so taking those away will be easy.

Sure they can incriminate their friends, but they can’t just waltz into a gun store as someone on the no-fly list and buy a gun, which is ridiculous on its face. If that happened, people would rightly ask why such a thing was even allowed, but maybe you wouldn’t.

The libs say persons on the no-fly list should not be allowed to buy guns. Mateen was not on the list. He was investigated at least twice but due to restrictions and political correctness was “cleared”.

The Russians warned the FBI about the Boston Jihad brothers but that investigation was also ended due to political correctness.

Major Hasan at FT Hood gave many indications he was a terror act waiting to happen but nothing was done because his colleagues and the Army feared being accused of anti-Islamic behavior.

I am guessing the gun seller for Mateen was also being PC while selling a suspicious looking guy an AR-15, and someone else was unable to find an armor vest for him. Neither reported anything. Those people were just being PC too. Trump would prosecute people who should have known, and someone needs to ask him what he thinks of these store people. At least if they were mandated to do checks, they wouldn’t have to worry about being PC. It removes that from the equation.

As I understand it, in the US, change of name is mainly regulated by the states. If Abdul Abulbul Emir changes his name to John Smith because he says he shares his name with someone on a no fly list, who could blame him?

The relevant court order allows various Federal data bases to be updated, a new motor vehicle license to be issued (actually legally mandated in many states), and so on. Of course, he may decide later to change it to Bill Jones, because there too many John Smiths.

How do you intend to stop John Smith (or Bill Jones) buying a gun? Purchasing a plane ticket? Maybe you could stop name changing. Poor old Bruce Jenner! No Caitlyn for her! Or Cassius Clay? Maybe even Robert Zimmermann?

What about gun shows? Maybe someone might just buy a firearm from a criminal – breaking laws doesn’t seem to bother them.

Much ado about nothing. Maybe proposed watch list checking money could be more usefully applied to paying off the National Debt (about $19 trillion or so).

As I understand it, in the US, change of name is mainly regulated by the states. If Abdul Abulbul Emir changes his name to John Smith because he says he shares his name with someone on a no fly list, who could blame him?

The relevant court order allows various Federal data bases to be updated, a new motor vehicle license to be issued (actually legally mandated in many states), and so on. Of course, he may decide later to change it to Bill Jones, because there too many John Smiths.

How do you intend to stop John Smith (or Bill Jones) buying a gun? Purchasing a plane ticket? Maybe you could stop name changing. Poor old Bruce Jenner! No Caitlyn for her! Or Cassius Clay? Maybe even Robert Zimmermann?

What about gun shows? Maybe someone might just buy a firearm from a cr1minal – breaking laws doesn’t seem to bother them.

Much ado about nothing. Maybe proposed watch list checking money could be more usefully applied to paying off the National Debt (about $19 trillion or so).

Probably need a photo id and a social security number to go with a name, otherwise bad luck, they won’t sell you a gun, but maybe there is cause to arrest you instead. Also in the case of watch lists, they can maybe give you the gun after a wait period and have the FBI secretly back on the watch to see what you’re up to.

Jim, your last comment is pretty much the way it is supposed to be working currently. My understanding is the gun seller did all the mandatory checks and the FBI was informed Mateen was purchasing weapons.

“I am guessing the gun seller for Mateen was also being PC while selling a suspicious looking guy an AR-15, ”

Let’s see – “I am guessing…” Of course you are, because you don’t have a clue. But being completely ignorant of the facts never stops you, does it Jim?

“..a suspicious looking guy…” How so? I’ve seen his photo. Looks like any other person. The guy was also employed by a security contractor. If anything that might tend to make him less suspicious. Or are you advocating racial or ethnic profiling?

“… the gun seller …. was also being PC …” For sure. Everybody who has ever bought a firearm knows that being PC is number one for firearms retailers. Ahead of making a profit even.

So, even if that happened, you come to the same conclusion about what should have happened. Does the FBI get notified of every gun store sale regardless of who it is and what they buy? I think you are saying that the criminal background check already goes to the FBI.

From the article:
…
Just months after Department of Homeland Security advisers claimed “the threat from right-wing extremists domestically is just as real as the threat from Islamic extremism,” DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson is now suggesting his department should be in charge of implementing gun control.

But media pioneer Matt Drudge reacted to Johnson’s comments with his own demand.

More …
WND also reported that there’s a pending public comment period for a proposed rule that would strip gun rights from an estimated four million or more Americans, without any adjudication.

President Obama’s newest plan would be to abruptly take Second Amendment rights away from a vast class of Social Security and government benefit recipients – anyone with help managing their government benefits and a wide range of other individuals. The change would make it a crime, instantly, for those individuals to have guns.

“The regulation promises to aggressively search for and take away the gun rights of Social Security Disability recipients with PTSB, ADHD, post partem depression, Alzheimer’s, etc.,” a report from Gun Owners of America said.

Sheffield said the Permian Basin is “set for explosive growth” in the next few years, with its players having the best balance sheets and the Permian currently having the most rigs. However, $50 oil isn’t going to get it done.

“Based on what we’ve done at Pioneer and looking at the entire shale play, if we had $50 oil flat, in my opinion, U.S. production will continue to decline,” said Sheffield. “We may grow for two or three years and a few independents may grow, but you don’t get enough cash flow.”

So what’s the magic number? What’s the inflection point?

“I think the world is going to need Permian Basin oil production, and it’s not going to grow until you get to $60 long term,” he said. “When oil moves toward $60 per barrel, I believe a good $10 of it for a lot of companies will go toward paying off debt, or they’ll start selling assets at decreased divesture prices. That extra $10 will be a huge difference for companies that have great balance sheets today. That’s why I’m a firm believer we’re in a $60 long term oil price environment.”

But his hotels are fabulous. Business smarts = tough posturing before you make a deal. Trump is the antithesis of Obama, Hillary or Kerry in this regard. If Trump realized there was an intelligent consensus behind climate action politically a deal was necessary who would be in a better position to negotiate than the toughest guy on the planet? After all, the guy who called the Soviets the “Evil Empire,” when Star Wars was still in the theaters, is also the guy who made the most substantive deals with them.

“He has threatened the censure of critics in the media, even condoning violence against protesters, calling them “thugs” and “criminals”. His success emboldens far right and ultra-nationalist movements in the US and across Europe, risking further destabilization.”

Trump the brownshirt will be the left’s angle from here on.

“At home, Trump’s promise to ban Muslims from entering the US, to erect a wall at the Mexican border, and to deport millions of immigrants will provoke widespread protest and civil unrest.”

“Abroad, Trump’s bravado and reckless unpredictability, his vow to renegotiate trade deals and to walk away from security alliances will generate deep tensions with China, Russia and Europe, risking financial collapse and military conflict.”

See brinkmanship, a word not much used in the last 30 years.

“In the midst of such dysfunction and upheaval, the glimmer of hope offered by the historic climate change pact agreed to in Paris last year may forever fade. The stakes riding on a US presidential election have never been higher.”

Its a good thing that science and politics don’t mix. It seem not enough scientists took the subject in school.

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a truck bomb. Would intense monitoring of places of worship have prevented this? Or banning guns?

And so it goes. Murderers are murderers. The dead don’t care what religion, race or sexuality their killer was.

History shows the results of singling out particular groups for preferment or blame. It might seem radical, but maybe free speech, equality under the law, and getting one’s own house in order before interfering in others’, might not be such a bad thing.

Society is complicated. Why go out of your way to make it even more so?

• The global oil and gas industry will need a minimum investment of nearly $3 trillion between 2016 and 2020, or about $600 billion each year, to maintain production needed for existing demand.

• It must meet annual demand growth of one to two percent while overcoming annual field declines of seven to nine percent.

• Deloitte notes that listed entities worldwide have $590 billion in maturing debt and approximately $600 billion in already reduced payouts to pay over the next five years.

• As a result of these debt repayments and other payouts, oil and gas companies are facing total cash outflows for debt and CAPEX of $4 trillion for the 2016 to 2020 time period.

• Deloitte estimates industry faces a $2 trillion funding gap over the five-year period, based on an average oil price of $55/barrel.

• After cutting CAPEX by approximately 25 percent last year, the global upstream industry, excluding the Middle East and North Africa, has announced further CAPEX cuts of 27 percent by 2016.

• Spending cutbacks due to low oil prices mean that companies are spending below the minimum required levels needed to maintain existing production, according to a recent Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions report, ‘Short of Capital?’

• “There’s a notion that any price recovery could be translated fairly quickly into an upturn in activity and drilling and completion, particularly for short cycle opportunities,” Slaughter commented. But Slaughter believes the recovery from the downturn – significant longer and more severe than previous downturns – will take longer.

• Underinvestment in existing wells “points towards a looming problem of sustaining current production levels and adding new capacity, which will likely be apparent three to five years from now,” Deloitte noted in the report.

“The Senate overwhelmingly passed a $602 billion defense bill Tuesday that included an amendment that would require women to register for the draft — also known as the selective service — for the first time in history.

The National Defense Authorization Act passed 85-13, although some Republican senators protested against the inclusion of the provision pertaining to women and the draft.”

Maybe the WWIII movies will have largely female casts. Who would be the female equivalents of Stallone and Schwartzenneger? The mind boggles!

We should not give up due process rights or 2nd amendment rights, or any other rights such as free speech, to the government because our country is not willing to defend its citizens. Jeh is after our 2nd amendment rights, and Obama talks like his no friend of free speech.

I do not understand why we should allow Muslims into the country until we can properly vet them for compatibility with our way of life. Per person in the US, 9/11 is equivalent to 300,000 terror deaths, and the Omar massacre is like 5,000 terror deaths. I think Trump is right about this.

Furthermore, Trump is right about energy independence. We should open up ANWR, open up government lands to fracking, and turn over management of the ME to people who need the oil. I think Europe is too weak to do it, but we ought to give them first right of refusal. When they pass, let the Chinese have it. They can bicker with the Russians for the next 70 years over it.

As an outsider (non-US citizen/resident) I find this fascinating.
But like the US, in my own country, there is much talk “rights” and “entitlements”, but little to none about the attendant responsibilities that go with those rights and entitlements.
So perhaps the answer for you is to move the conversation away from rights and onto responsibilities. Hasn’t happened here either, but I think it worthwhile to try.

Individuals responsibilities begin with the competent defense of their own lives. It is not with any irony that I point out that the responsibility to defends one’s own right to life is itself a right. Next individuals have a responsibility towards their family and the protection of it, which also happens to be a right. After this, people have the responsibility towards their group, and they, of course, belong to that group by right and any necessary defense of that group. From here the individual has a responsibility towards humanity as a whole as well as the planet but an individual’s ability to defend and protect humanity and the planet is proportional to that individuals success in accepting the previous responsibilities.

Jean Paul, very good big picture redux. What is lacking is leadership to unite all toward common purpose, a purpose more noble than smiting political enemies (scapegoating). Polarization is effective for gaining power but leaves a society prostrate to coping long term challenges or foreign enemies.

We could draft everybody when they turn 18 for 6 weeks and run them through a basic training gun safety course.

Then we could require everybody to own a firearm (like Switzerland or is it Sweden?). They don’t have to carry it (but could), but they have to keep it in their house and maintain it and have ammo for it.

Wouldn’t that be interesting?

If everybody at the Pulse was armed, I wonder how many would have died before the gunman was himself gunned down?

Cone said he did not believe that the weapons involved in the attack — one of them a semiautomatic — were military-issued.

The rules for carrying weapons on an Army post are standard throughout all bases, service officials said. The only personnel allowed to openly display weapons on the base are military police, said Lt. Col. Nathan Banks, an Army spokesman.

“So perhaps the answer for you is to move the conversation away from rights and onto responsibilities”.

Fine as long as “responsibilities” includes taking care of yourself and reversing the ever-growing encroachment of govt. control over our lives.

And when you say “away from rights”, fine as long as our rights are upheld. The Bill Of Rights is a list of what the individual can do and the govt. can not deny. And oh yeah there’s only one right where the founding fathers thought it was important enough to add “shall not be infringed”.

“And when you say “away from rights”, fine as long as our rights are upheld.”

I DID say move the conversation that way, not the law, so no incompatibility there.

It is a fine thing to stand up for your rights, I just believe that those rights come with responsibilities, and discussion of those responsibilities is sorely lacking in the west. As an example, your 2nd amendment right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to obtain said arms legally, to maintain them in good working order, to store them in a secure place when not under your direct control, to NOT use them to intimidate or injure/kill other people except in very specific circumstances and so on. As far as I am aware, these responsibilities are not written into your constitution – perhaps THAT would be appropriate? Not being a citizen/resident, it’s not my place to say, just throwing ideas around… who knows, that may be a way to bring together both sides on this issue.

But what I suggested was not limited to just the 2nd amendment – I meant your whole bill of rights AND your duties as a citizen. Not much talk of that – at least, not much that appears in foreign media. I find it distressing that in my own country, school kids are told what their rights are and encouraged to stand up for them, but very little appears to be said regarding responsibilities. In my view, this is the exact opposite of what should be done – learn your responsibilities first, then learn your rights.

It is a fine thing to stand up for your rights, I just believe that those rights come with responsibilities, and discussion of those responsibilities is sorely lacking in the west.

There’s been a long-running debate throughout our national history over the source of the virtues needed for our republican form of goverment to work:

Along with the other Founding Fathers, Jefferson would surely have agreed with George Mason’s dire assessment of the predicament of the young republic:

Whether our Independence shall prove a Blessing or a Curse must depend upon our own Wisdom and Folly, Virtue or Wickedness: judging of the future from the Past, the Prospect is not promising. Justice and Virtue are the vital Principles of republican Government; but among us, a Depravity of Manners and Morals prevails, to the Destruction of all Confidence between Man & Man.

The central problem raised by this troubled observation concerned the exact role of religious belief and practice in overcoming the “Depravity of Manners and Morals” and inspiring “Justice and Virtue,” “the vital Principles of republican Government.”

As Little goes on to explain, both Jefferson and Madison were “deeply ambivalent” and “argued at different times in different ways” as to the source of the “Manners and Morals,” and “Justice and Virtue” that are the “vital Principles of republican Government.”

We need to emphasize that although Jefferson was not always consistent about the distinction between “religion” and “morality,” a distinction that clearly underles the statute, he did on occasion stand by that distinction and take its full consequences. In 1814, he wrote to Thomas Law: “Some have made the love of God the foundation of morality…. [But] if we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist[s]?…. Their virtue must have some other foundation.”

And it is this idea of a ground for morality taken as independent of religion that can be understood to lie behind Jefferson’s famous statement in the statute: “[Weill aware] that our civil rights have no dependence on our religous opinions….”

Little concludes that despite Jefferson and Madison’s ambivalence,

It is, however, worth remembering that the Virgina Statute of and the “Memorial and Remonstrance” are of special significance, since they have, explicitly and intentionally, a legislative, or civil institutional, objective. They are not offhand or purely rhetorical statements, as are some of the frequently quoted utterances of Jefferson and Madison in favor of an American civil religion.

Interestingly enough, both Jefferson’s statute and Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” were conceived in reaction to a widespread belief at the time that is reminsicent of the claims of [Ronald] Reagan, [William J.] Bennett, and [Richard John] Neuhaus.

True enough. Not all people deserve their rights, either – yet they get them anyway. So why not codify the responsibilities along with the rights? Don’t want to meet your responsibilities? Fine, you lose your rights – or some specific part thereof, etc. Needs to be talked about, because otherwise we will get what you described from the pollies. I think it would need to be a part of your bill of rights though – it would be too easy to change otherwise. Which makes it hard to get done. Nothing worthwhile is easy, though…

“The coming Constitutional crisis from Hillary’s emails” There didn’t seem to be much of significance in Mr. Schindler’s lengthy article that wasn’t from his fevered imagination. His questionable “facts” seemed to be lacking veracity, context or were from unnamed sources. So I did some research on him. This linked article, probably as cheesy, irrelevant and laughable as his was, certainly is more amusing. Much as I like to read dirt on politicians of any stripe I won’t be using anything Mr. Schindler wrote to analyze anybody’s political future. I’d urge you to be just as skeptical.http://blackbag.gawker.com/the-crazy-emails-that-took-down-nsa-spook-john-schindle-161020310

Today the Fed declined to touch interest rates, saying the economy was precarious. In Europe the specter of the Brits going it alone also has serious economic consequence for the US fiscal state which can only be speculated upon.

In the face of a bad economy heading into the Fall elections, Democrats, rightly perceived as the least capable to righting the economic Ship of State, are fearful of loosing the election on economic grounds, which Trump will exploit. So the Democrats hammer away at Trump’s character issues as they have no defense for their economic failures.

MainSteam media are complicit in the demogogury as usual, fearful themselves of having no access to people in Government power if Trump is elected President. He already has banned the Washington Post. More slanted reporting from the New York Times and they too could find themselves with their noses pressed to the National news sources window looking in. Access to the President is vital for the survival of News media. Denied access for one or two Presidential terms and WPo & NYT may find themselves out of business.

Vitriol towards Trump & not investigating nor reporting on Clinton’s very real warts is their economic strategy. Ruppert Murdoch would not be happy to see his investment go into the tank.

The East Coast & West Coast Establishments are rightly alarmed. But, Middle America, warts and all, having silently carried the mail for the two Coasts for a long time, seemed to have awakened, ever so briefly, to exercise the power of their grievances.

This year’s gathering…signals what could be an emerging movement within the EU to ease economic sanctions on Russia.

The sanctions dealt a heavy blow on agriculture-dependent nations such as Greece.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi are to speak at the forum.

Chief executives of major companies who are either engaged in long-term projects in Russia or whose projects were affected by the sanctions are also coming this year, including the CEOs of oil companies BP and ExxonMobil, the chairman of the board of Nestle S.A. and others.

U.S. authorities, in their turn, were anxious to portray ExxonMobil’s participation as an exception. “We’ve been very clear on our engagements with U.S. companies that we believe that are clear risks, both economic and reputational, associated with top-level engagement with a government that is flouting the most fundamental principles of international rule of law by intervening military in a neighboring country,” U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Wednesday.

Trump has committed the most venial of sins, which is to challenge not only the neocons in the Democratic Party, but the neocons in the Republican Party as well.

As the above video notes,

Now a full blown accusation…., a criticism extended to top leaders of his own party as well.

And of course Trump is right that the Democrats, as well as the Republicans, have supported ISIS and other Islamic Terrorists. Anyone who has even a scintilla of knowledge of U.S. involvement in the Middle East and Central Asia knows this.

“The downstream consequences of Obama White House decisions in the Syrian conflict are still playing out, but certainly the U.S. – and particularly CIA – support of identifiable jihadist groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, the Islamic State and other [jihadists] has only exacerbated what was already a devastating situation,” declared Lopez.

The idea of giving terrorists weapons to help fight the US’s enemies, including other terrorists, is not original to the Obama administration. And it has been a thoroughly bipartisan affair.

It began in 1978 during the Carter administration with psych-ops:

Brzezinski was unabmiguously in favor of destabilizing the Soviet Union, not in normalizing relations with it. He later described how “as early as 1978, President Carter approved proposals prepared by my staff to undertake, for example, a comprehensive, covert action program designed to help the non-Russian nations in the Soviet Union pursue more actively their desire for independence — a program in effect to destabilize the Soviet Union.”

Under this program, CIA began to infiltrate written materialis to diverse ethnic regions of the USSR….

This also apparently began the operation whereby CIA helped the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI), Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) to distribute in the Soviet Union thousands of Wahhabi-glossed Korans, an important contribution to the spread of Islamism in Central Asia today.

— PETER DALE SCOTT, The Road to 9/11

Brzezinski’s “stirring up of the jihadi hornet’s nest” with psych-ops, however, was soon to escalate to the United States giving terrorists weapons. As Scott goes on to explain:

A year later…Brzezinski inititated his better-known destabilization program, south of the Amy Darta River in Afghanistan. By using Islamic fundamentalism against the Soviets, Brzezinski clearly regarded himself a master chess player….

The ultimate costs of Brzezinski’s adventure included not only the “agitated Muslims” of al Qaeda and Iraq, but also what former CIA al Qaeda expert Mike Scheuer has called “the Afghan heroin factories that have killed more Americans than the 11 September attacks.”….

The decision to work with the Saudi and Pakistani secret services meant that billions of CIA and Saudi dollars would ultimately be spent in programs that would help enhance the globalistic and Wahhabistic jihadism that are associated today with al Qaeda….

This decision…belies the usual American rhetoric that the United States was assisting an Afghan liberation movement. Instead, it was assisting Pakistani and also Saudi assets… As an Afghan leader in 1994 told Tim Weinter of the New York Times: “We didn’t choose these leaders. The United States made Hekmatyar by giving him weapons. Now we want the United States to shake these leaders and make them stop killing, to save us from them.”….

This irony has been noted before. Less noted, but equally important, is that eventually through Pakistani channels the United States and its allies (chiefly Saudi Arabia) gave Hekmatyar more than $1 billion in armaments. This was more than any other CIA client has ever received, before or since. Those weapons, including the lethal ground-to-air Stingers, have since armed terrorists around the world. This unparalleled support to one of the world’s leading drug traffickers, who later became one of America’s primary enemies, occurred at a time when the United States was talking of a “war on drugs.”

Glenn, the funding of the anti-Soviet Islamic Afghan fighters through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan was a continuation of the Cold War geopolitical strategy of containment at the periphery. The covert training and funding of rebels goes even further back to the CIA’s predecessor, the OSS, which trained and armed Ho Chi Mien to fight the Japanese in WWII.

Covert operations that did not work out in the long run include are too numerous to name. Of course, an unknown success story, if there is one, could have remained secret.

1) Arming Ho in Vietnam.
2) Installing the Shah of Iran in a coup.
3) Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines.
4) Pinochet in Chile and others in SA
5) Idi Amin in Uganda and others in Africa
6) Batista and then originally supporting Castro in Cuba
7) Guatamala, Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras and El Salvidor
8) “Papa Doc” François Duvalier in Haiti

By 2000 the lessons had been learned by some and the presidential candidate vowed in a televised debate he would not support “nation building.” The 2003 Iraq War was to be a new and improved policy of overt intervention followed by setting the seeds of democracy. I believed in it then. I was overoptimistic. Societies must be forced to suffer until they can come their own consensus. Imposed solutions seen universally to be unstable. Perhaps that is a universal anthropological law.

Clinton seems to me to be like just another weak Bureaucrat, like the bureaucrats that run and control the EU. Does the US really want another bureaucrat type, or do they want someone to avoid the US following Europe’s long, inevitable decline – like the decline of the Roman Empire?

Just imagine, a weakling is going to beat a tough guy. If so, exactly how tough was he? Answer: he’s the same rich, sheltered pansy he’s been all of his life. Obama beat her. He exploited her weaknesses. It’s obvious he would complete destroy Donald Trump.

==> Answer: he’s the same rich, sheltered pansy he’s been all of his life.”

No, no, no, no, no.

He’s a working class hero who just happened to inherit millions, a truth-speaker who just coincidentally falsifies his identity to promote himself and changes positions on issues depending on the day (e.g., He called for a halt in Muslim immigration, didn’t call for a halt in Muslim immigration, and then was smart for calling for a halt in Muslim immigration), an independent candidate who just happens to be seeking financial backing, a non-interventionist who just happens to promise massive military build up and exercise of military power, an economic “conservative” who just happens to advocate for government interference in the economy, a freedom crusader who just happens to advocate for massive government involvement in personal lives, talks of shutting down the Internet, threatens to sue journalists for writing articles he doesn’t like, etc., and a political correctness destroyer who just happens to go bonkers when someone uses the term “holiday tree….”

The technocratic establishment in Europe is in full meltdown mode too, just like our technocratic estabishment in the U.S. And it has responded with the same old lame, hackneyed politics of fear that the Warmists/Alarmists use ad nauseaum here in the United States:

In other words when such powerful figures as the German Finance Minister and the presidents of the European Commission and Council tell you to vote Remain, then there can be no doubt what you should do.

Everyone is supposed to forget the recent records of these three politicians.

• Schäuble has pretty much single-handedly transformed Europe’s recession into a depression as well as reducing Greece to a perpetual humanitarian crisis.

• Juncker, as prime minister in Luxemburg, created a tax system there, which permitted large corporations to pay hardly any taxes on their European profits, to the detriment of the member states’ taxpayers. Instead of being jailed, he was made head of the EU Commission.

• Tusk rammed a neo-liberal EU policy down the throats of the Poles, resulting in them recently electing an anti-EU, ultra-conservative party with an absolute majority into government. That is the first time since the post-communist era that any party has obtained such a mandate. These are some rather impressive accomplishments.

To make matters worse, Schäuble has employed his usual tactic of bullying to influence the British, making it perfectly clear that in the case of Brexit “In is in and out is out”. There will be no good will, no compromises. Do not think this is simply polemic. It is the same sort of thing he told the Greeks before he crushed them. Britain may not have the Euro, but a nation defying German hegemony by leaving the EU is a dangerous precedent and must be made an example of – see Greece. There is a large arsenal of economic weapons available to the Germans and they have no scruples about using them….

Following Schäuble’s threat, Tusk demonstrated the typical political acumen of the EU elite with his matter of fact analysis of Brexit, claiming that it could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilisation in its entirety….

Schäuble, Juncker and Tusk, like the rest of the EU elite, have become anathema for most Europeans, especially for those with any sense of democracy, justice or solidarity….

The EU spends millions every year maintaining the illusion that it is one of the great European achievements. The problem is that it has not been the case for a long time. It has become the enforcer of a now-liberal agenda, converting the particular interests of big business into European law. So we have an anti-democratic EU under German hegemony furthering the interests of large corporations – I doubt this is what the people of Europe want or deserve….

There seems to be little hope of the EU being reformed. The EU elite feel too secure and have too much to lose. A democratic EU is completely useless for them.

Glenn,
Something interesting happened this morning, Over in Britain a Labor MP (No exit) was shot by a guy that is reported to have yelled “Britain first!” as he shot and stabbed the 41 year old mother of 2. Just before the news broke our stock market (DOW) was just making session lows -150pts. Almost to the minute the market reversed and started a slow crawl back cutting losses in half in the next hour as European news reports started casting blame on a Brexit extremist. Another hour went by and the news broke that the MP had died of her wounds and suddenly the DOW shot up and went positive ending the day up 90+ pts.. British betting markets also noted an immediate pop in the odds of a Brexit loss in the coming referendum.
The moral to this story is when someone important is killed by a terrorist it can shift markets and opinions quickly but when 48 nobodies get slaughtered the only thing that moves is the stock price of Smith&Wesson (but not public opinions). Classic behavioral economics on display.

The story is evolving over here in Britain as there is still confusion over this very unusual shooting.

It seems that someone heard the shooter shout ‘ put Britain first’ and bearing in mind the shot MP works closely with Syrian refugees- increasingly unpopular over here – the motive might be anti immigrant rather than related to the Brexit question. We shall have to see how this develops

Unusual in as much it was an MP taking a ‘ surgery’ whereby she was meeting some constituents on matters that concerned them. Also unusual in as much assassinations are rare and so is the use of firearms in a shooting that was not gang or terrorist related

I think she’s the 48th MP to be murdered. 73 have been hanged or beheaded, about 70 more have died in prison or on the lamb, 19 have been killed in duels, 96 have committed suicide, 192 have died in accidents, and 229 have died in battle.

The UK Parliament is a death cult with the trappings of a legislature.

“The coming constitutional crises over Hillary Clinton’s emailgate”
Not a very good article, but the Clinton email issues are very real. We’ll see what comes of the FBI investigation. Liberals seem to have a complete blind spot about this issue, probably because Clinton has been teflon-coated in all the myriad issues of the past.
We’ll have to see; if the FBI recommends indictment, I just have no idea what the Democratic Party would do. Neither do they, as they seem not to have thought about it. Stick it out, or Biden, or Bernie Sanders? A third of the party in favor of each of these choices?

Bill Clinton, charged and found guilty but not impeached.
Richard Nixon, charged and found guilty but pardoned.
Donald Trump, charged with (fraud/breach of contract/breaking labor laws/tax avoidance/slander,etc) 1300 civil law suites, found guilty in dozens (if not 100’s) of law suites, millions in fines but no jail time.
Hillery Clinton, under investigation for unauthorized use of email server, found guilty in the court of public opinion.
The case is clear, Trump2016
America, that shining beacon on the hill.

Your vote Jack. However I might disagree with who you give it to ( or not using it at all) it’s yours.

All I will say is that if Hillary is our next President, part of that will be on your shoulders. All part of the responsibly of being a citizen. Just as I will bear responsibility if Trump wins and fuc’s up the country.

Weird description. Let’s fix it:
Hillary Clinton, under investigation for various possible criminal charges concerning deleting and intentionally mishandling government documents, negligently mishandling classified material and even Top Secret material, and thereby endangering important American interests in diplomacy, in military, in espionage, in we don’t know what all.
And possibly for RICO violations by taking huge monetary fees and contributions while involved in handling cases involving the same parties as Secretary of State.
And not “found guilty in the court of public opinion”. Rather, already found guilty (of the first group of charges) by a Inspector General’s investigation in the State Department. Just wasn’t a criminal investigation, so we don’t know what the FBI will conclude in its concurrent investigation.
And already found guilty of lying flat-out about pretty much everything I discussed (by the IG report), including her refusing to cooperate with the IG’s investigation. Trump is a shock jock who doesn’t think too much about what he says. Clinton is a deliberate, conscienceless liar:http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/mika-it-feels-like-clinton-is-lying-straight-out-693313091808

I’m not really either mike. But I too will probably vote for him just because the alternative is Hilly.

Although I must admit that the more shrill the attacks from Hillary and the Dem’s, from the Repub Party and the MSM become, the more curious I get about the impact of 4 years of Trump on the establishment.

I think the straw that might have pushed me into the Trump camp was the comparisons to Hitler and the accusations that Trump (and Sanders) were inciting violence, while at the same time Hillary’s campaign and the Democratic Party were actively recruiting volunteers to disrupt Trump political events and manipulating primary events to freeze out Sanders voters.

Pay attention. I have never called you un-informed. The closest I came was referencing another commenters’ use of the word.

And if you read what I said, it should be at least somewhat evident that I am not “undecided”. Rather I still have concerns and questions, but more and more they are beginning to fade.

But that would require you to be the open minded reasonable one you so want to be seen as. And to be clear, I think you are probably a reasonable person. You just come across as someone who wants to seem reasonable very badly.

Tim,
“Probably” vote for Trump is an indicator of indecision, but that’s a minor concern. I too will “probably” not vote for him. Yet here, from some I admire (and some not as much so) there are strong leanings Trump’s way. So I come to ask for reasons behind those leanings and get ‘faith’ (that’s a fine answer’) and ‘because not Hillary’ (that’s okay also). Only one has provided somewhat of a policy discussion.

So yes, I’m holding back a bit here as I don’t care much for the man personally. That’s an emotional response which can sometimes cause one to miss information. So your perception that maybe I’m trying too hard is on to a point.

But that’s no worse than your choice to vote for him because it’s against Hillary. You obviously don’t care for her, but that’s a hell of a reason to vote FOR an alternative that you also may not truly support dontcha think?
It does, however, provide ‘information’ and I appreciate it.

“But that’s no worse than your choice to vote for him because it’s against Hillary. You obviously don’t care for her, but that’s a hell of a reason to vote FOR an alternative that you also may not truly support dontcha think?”

With regard to a discussion of Trump’s policy positions – I’ve already stated that I effectively agree with you that there is little out there with which to conduct a detailed analysis. I’ve also explained why I don’t think it matters that much.

I’ve already stated that I do not put any faith in what someone running for office says. In addition to that, I know that when it comes to the issue that is among the most important to the largest number of voters – the economy – it doesn’t matter what a Presidential candidate says, even if he is committed to following through on his promises. That’s because the President in reality has very little – as in almost no – control over the economy.

So what do I think Trump might try to accomplish? On economic issues I’d say he will look into lowering the corporate tax rate to keep companies from trying to move profits offshore. He may push for taxes of offshore income or penalties for companies who enter into inverse acquisitions in order to “relocate” their corporate HQ. I can see him at least threatening China with import duties and other trade barriers if they don’t play according to the rules (which they routinely do not). He knows China needs the US far more than we need China. He may try to cap or even reduce number of H1C visas issued annually. I don’t think he will succeed, but he will at least be acting on his campaign promises to protect American jobs for American citizens. And who knows, he might even wring some concessions out of the tech industry.

If nothing else, the most important reason for voting for Trump has to do with the President’s role in nominating judges, particularly SC justices. On that score he has publicly provided a list of possible judges, one that seems to be pretty informed. That role often has far greater impact than any other decision a President might make.

Tim,
I appreciate that and I do appreciate the perspectives. Hopefully, you (and others) in turn can appreciate my consternation regarding the dearth of information for myself and others seeking it.

Please recognize that I share concerns with all the candidates. We’re not doing a quality job of vetting those whom we select to lead our country. That is not just at the presidency level. Heck, at least we’re having (if acrimonious) conversation here. Many I speak with in person don’t even bother to vote much less put forth much effort.

My contention is that our quandry is a mirror representation of ourselves and the responsibility for our circumstance lies with us. Having traveled extensively I find that what actually happens in the bulk of our country is not as difficult as portrayed in media. Were we to grab some lawn chairs, sit and talk together I can’t help but believe that we could come to some mutually acceptable solutions to a good percentage of our issues. I’d like to see it happen and leave our supposed ‘representatives’ out of it as it sure couldn’t hardly get much more contentious. “The people” seem to be left out and “the power” seem to be just fine.

I’ve even called myself polyanna so there’s no need for you to have to repeat that. I’d hope that others will join me in the polyanna world. It’s not a bad place to live.

I really believe that anyone who has even a slightly open mind who watches the Clinton clips at the beginning of the Mika video, followed by the panel’s comments, must come to the same conclusion as I did about her truthfulness. It’s like taking a class on what a liar looks like, very worthwhile.

==> I really believe that anyone who has even a slightly open mind who watches the Clinton clips at the beginning of the Mika video, followed by the panel’s comments, must come to the same conclusion as I did about her truthfulness.

Enjoy your bias confirming games of moral equivocation, but I’m not interested in joining you. Both will say whatever they can to advance their interests (get elected). Both are untrustworthy, IMO.

I think Clinton may be a bit less disgusting than Trump, but that isn’t why I will vote for her. I’ll vote for her because although I disagree with her on many policy fronts, I’d rather have policy influence in the oval office than Trump’s, and because I’d rather have her nominating SC judges.

But watching you and the other Trump toadies twist yourselves into Trump apologist pretzels might even worth it for the amusement value if he does get elected.

@joshua “What conclusions have you drawn about Trump’s truthfulness?”
Trump is a shock jock. He talks a lot, off the hip, and doesn’t care much about checking his words. Actually like most of us when we aren’t running for office. Unfortunately for America, there’s a whole different norm for people who do run for office, where you never ever say anything – best even decades before you run – that says anything at all. Trump tapped into a vast ocean of discontent among Americans who are sick of politicians and their ways.
Anyhow, I posted my video. Feel free to post something comparable; I have never seen Trump do that. Most of what he says is wrong, but that’s a different story.

After being turned down by several publicly-owned venues in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, Donald Trump will hold a rally in Dallas tonight at Gilley’s, the country and western night club named after country and western singer Mickey Gilley.

The Republican presidential candidate’s advance team had been on the ground in North Texas this week trying to find a location for a mega-event.

Earlier Wednesday, officials at Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in downtown Dallas confirmed that they, too, had declined to host a Trump rally. Grand Prairie and Irving officials said Tuesday evening that both cities declined offers to host the event.

Ron King, who runs the city-owned center in downtown Dallas, said the Trump campaign inquired late last week about using the arena. But King told Trump’s people…that the need for security alone made the request impossible….

Grand Prairie declined to host a rally at Verizon Theatre, a city spokeswoman confirmed Tuesday evening….

“It’s not only providing security for the rally in itself. It is providing security for the unknown,” said Lyle Gensler, Grand Prairie police spokesman.

He said his department would have needed help from neighboring cities.

Irving also rejected the rally, citing timing. Mayor Beth Van Duyne said the Trump campaign approached the city too late for a rally Thursday at the city’s convention center.

So Trump will hold his rally at the privately-owned Gilley’s, located in working-class south Dallas.

Ironically, a counter protest will be held in Highland Park, which is Dallas’ toniest and most exclusive neighborhood.

The organizer of the counter protest was happy that Trump had been forced into holding his rally at Gilleys, a less genteel venue:

Carlos Quintanilla, leader of the Hispanic activist group Accion America, who has been spearheading plans for protests against Trump in Dallas, took satisfaction that Trump, who drew an estimated 15,000 people — and a lot of protesters — to a September rally at the American Airlines Center, had scaled down to Gilley’s.

“I can rent Gilley’s and have a party for my children,” Quintanilla said.

Gilley’s South Side Ballroom has a capacity of 3,800 guests. But it’s smaller than other venues the campaign had sought to secure in the past couple of days, including the arena at Dallas’ Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center, which can accommodate 9,200 people, the 6,350-seat Verizon Theatre in Grand Prairie and the 4,500-seat Irving Convention Center.

In all three cases, officials cited concerns about putting together the necessary security on short order and also whether the venues were large enough.

Trump critics met Wednesday to discuss plans for the counter protest, and said buses will be deployed throughout Dallas County to transport people to the event. Protest organizers are asking participants to wear white to symbolize peace, and marshals wearing yellow shirts will be in the crowd to help keep the peace.

Tuesday afternoon, Quintanilla posted the following video on Facebook urging supporters to gather:

This is a telephone poll, thought to be more accurate than internet polling. From the article:
…
The campaign to quit the European Union has surged into a six-point lead with exactly a week to go, a sensational Ipsos MORI poll reveals today.

From the article:
…
The Obama Administration is already under fire for producing an average real GDP growth of just 1.55 percent for their its 7 years in office. That ranks the Obama presidency as the fourth from the bottom for the 43 Presidents of the United States, Obama’s performance ranks above only Herbert Hoover at -5.65 percent, Andrew Johnson at -0.70 percent and Theodore Roosevelt at 1.41 percent.

From 1790 to 2000, U.S. real GDP growth averaged 3.79 percent. The much-criticized administration of President George W. Bush delivered average real GDP growth of 2.10 percent, with 2004 and 2005 coming in at over 3 percent growth.

Although the bottom 60% has borne the brunt of the Obama “recovery,” the top 40% has not made out like a bandit.

lol, The Pause in the top two quintiles started in 2000. Clearly the economy runs on satellite data. Either that, or Obama was setting fiscal policy from the Senate.

We need Tom Karl for President. First person evar to retroactively fix the economy. It would be brilliant.

Even the top 5% has only managed to tread water. I think this is why Trump’s support comes from all social classes.

Ideally, all quintiles would grow at the same rate. Rising tide raises all boats, remember? (It’s better framing than “trickle down”.) Some boats are more equal than others I guess.

I’d be interested to hear Trump’s plans for the decline of the bottom quintile. One hopes deportation isn’t the answer. Or would it be an export? No, that doesn’t really work. Let’s see, thousand points of light? Meh, so last century. 10% discount on Trump U. tuition?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sure Hillary has any better ideas. No, that’s not quite right … no better intentions. But Warren. Hmmm.

Bernie talked the better game, but I don’t think Congress (the opposite of Progress) is ready for a socialist revolution. Democrat primary voters either, really. So at least there’s that.

The only thing that Killary is offering is more of the same: “Change you can believe in.”

And Obama and Killary are both claiming the Democrats delivered on the promised “Change you can believe in” that Obama promised back in 2008.

But how did that “Change you can believe in” turn out for the great unwashed? Did “Change you can believe in” really change their economic situation? Or was it merely a continuation of what had come before 2008, layered over with false claims as to how much things have changed since then?

Broken down by county, not even 10% of the nation is back where it was before the crash of 2007 and 2008….

That could go a long way toward explaining why national approval levels of the President’s handling of the economy are still underwater in double digits. You can post some sunny numbers and give a flowery speech, but when people are still struggling financially in their daily lives and their houses are still worth less than they paid for them they probably aren’t going to buy into the hype.

You are being highly speculative. As of 10 minutes ago the police had no idea of the motive.

The guy who did it was apparently mentally Ill but had not previously exhibited any violence

The mp shot was by no means a prominent supporter of remain in the eu. She was a very good mp however who was noted for her compassion to Syrian refugees. It is speculation as to whether she was the intended target, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time or if there was a specific motive for the attack related to the mp ‘s areas of special interest.

Jim2,
You are not skeptical enough. When I saw the 80% gang-related homicide figure you posted my B.S. meter went off loudly. Your source is incorrect. This is a more accurate quote:
“Note: An early edition incorrectly quoted that 80% of non-suicide homicide gun deaths were gang-related. The true number is unknown as a large percentage of homicides are not categorized whatsoever.)”
And your math is horrible. 1% of 312 million is about 3 million. .1% is about 300,000. .01% is about 30,000 That is the chance of someone dying from a gun every year(32,000 according to you) not your ridiculously inaccurate .000102564…% . Please also note that is an annual percentage. I’m planning on hitting 100, making my chance almost 1% in my lifetime, though two-thirds of that is unlikely as I’d choose a “Thelma and Louise” ending if I went down that road, not messing my purty head up by swallowing a load of lead.
Though I am a gun owner and have used one to protect myself both actively and passively, to say “America DOES NOT have a gun problem is silly. Take your dismissal of the accidental gun deaths (3%) When I was visiting in Florida decades ago there were five children killed by their own hands or by other children because of improper storage of loaded weapons in a two week period. Will you cavalierly dismiss the deaths of those children and the failure of their parents to act responsibly as not a problem because it is only one gadzillionth of a percent?
Bad facts, bad math, bad logic, Sensible gun control is a good thing. Responsible gun owners agree strongly.

Accidental gun deaths, no matter the age of the victim, are tragic. However to claim the problem as being a gun problem is ridiculous. Where do gun accidents rank in causes of accidental death? Pretty low. How about accidental drug overdoses? Are not drugs heavily controlled and require a prescription to obtain?

Ignoring the fact accidents happen, accidents which are the result of a lack of responsible behavior or in some cases plain st00pidity, are not the fault of whatever mechanism caused the harm.

“I’m not a psychiatrist, but the struggle with his humanity, his sexuality, combined with the potential for putting the onus on an organization that’s asking people to do this — asking extremists to do these kinds of things — is an interesting dynamic,” he said.

“And that’s the thing that makes this case so extremely difficult.”

The gunman’s ex-wife, Sitora Yusufiy, said she was not sure about his sexuality.

“It doesn’t surprise me that he might be gay,” she said. “And it doesn’t surprise me that he was leading two totally different lives and was in such deep conflict within himself.”

But the gunman’s father, Seddique Mateen, has said he didn’t think his son was gay. He emphasized that Mateen had a wife and child.

Some on the left are alleging militarists are manipulating the motives of Mateen:

Despite the array of new details that case Mateen as an erratic figure consumed with personal and psychological issues with little relevance to international terror organizations, the mainstream media’s narrative of a hardcore jihadist has remained intact, and thanks largely to law enforcement’s careful management of information…..

A bonanza for militaristic politicians

However bizarre Mateen’s conflicting allegiances might have been, the reports of his support for ISIS provided militaristic politicians from both parties with an irresistible opportunity.

• “People” who think because they’re bigger and stronger, they have a right to oppress those around them.

• “People” who think they have a right to impose their will on others because “they know better”.

• “People who eat peppermint and puff it in your face.”

Just to name a few.

Want an example? Take the socialist fervor for “public transportation”. Among the implications of that idea is the fact (seldom mentioned) that anybody riding on a bus, or train, or other “public transportation” is at the mercy of anybody bigger, stronger, or better armed than he, or she is.

“Public transportation” is a socialist ideal. In contrast to private vehicles, it puts everybody at the mercy of social bullies.

The prohibition on firearms serves a similar effect in other venues: it allows big bullies to oppress real human beings, where the ability of anybody to have a firearm puts them on a more equal footing.

If you look at the people who have died from these types of weapons in the US, the vast majority of them are not people you would have wanted dead. At what level do you say that a weapon is just too deadly efficient to be available to the general public? How about automatic weapons for example, machine guns?

AK, how many countries have societies like the one you envisage where the person with the biggest gun has the most power? Are they more perfect to you in some way? Wouldn’t that be a nightmare to a normal person?

JimD, “If you look at the people who have died from these types of weapons in the US, the vast majority of them are not people you would have wanted dead. At what level do you say that a weapon is just too deadly efficient to be available to the general public? How about automatic weapons for example, machine guns?”

The vast majority of gun homicides are with pistols and old fashion revolvers are still used nearly half the time. Handguns have the highest regulation with licensing and waiting periods in most states because statistically, they are the greatest threat. “Assault weapons” don’t even rate their own category. When the Orlando gunman bought his rifle and handgun, he had to wait 3 days for the handgun.

Machine guns which would include real assault rifles, are already regulated and require a tougher to get license and since 1934 have not been used for any murder. There are more deaths by assault rifle in Switzerland per year, suicides, than in the US.

“JPZ, your views are so extreme, I am not even going to bother addressing them. Argue with DS on that one about the military.”

My views are right in line and harmonious with the founders view of the 2nd Amendment. Of course, mad ol’ King George and his sycophants saw the founders as extremists, but when accuse me as being extremist for espousing the very same views the founders espoused you are only just projecting.

Jim, Please tell us exactly what gun does one need for protection and what gun is needed to hunt. And then could you please tell us the formula you used to determine which guns are needed for those purposes.

This thing about guns for protection at home is also not rational. If armed people come into your home, is it better to comply and hand over your valuables, or get out your gun and start a gunfight? And what are the odds of that happening where you live? Why would they choose you over your neighbor? How many neighbors has that happened to? What are the odds? The stats say that a gun in the home is more likely to lead to the death of a resident than an intruder. Rational thought is required. Weigh up the odds.

You are suggesting that if my house is broken into while family members are home I should trust them to be gentle and respectful if those being robbed are cooperative? Aren’t the people who would break into an occupied home also be likely to rape and kill? Why would the robbers leave behind people who they know will call the police as soon as possible and identify them in a police lineup?

You might want to roll over and leave yourself and your loved ones at the mercy of thugs who’ve broken into your home but everyone doesn’t feel that way.

So, Jim D. For you, just place all your valuables on the curb. That way, the crooks won’t have to kick in your door or disturb you. I’ll do otherwise. Too bad these stats don’t include the outcome when the homeowner is armed.

From the article:
…
• An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.
• A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglar-
ies and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
• Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence
when a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery
(7%) and rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household
member was present and violence occurred.
• Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent bur-
glaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.
• Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence
occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About
12% of all households violently burglarized while someone was
home faced an offender armed with a firearm.
• Households residing in single family units and higher density
structures of 10 or more units were least likely to be burglarized
(8 per 1,000 households) while a household member was present.
• Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted
for 36% of injuries sustained by household members who were
home and experienced violence during a completed burglary.

I am giving you the odds. It is 1 per 10,000 per year that your scenario happens, probably less if you live in a safe area. A typical person is going to have their gun gathering dust for their lifetime. It is an irrational fear, and there are much more likely dangers in the home than that. If it is needed to soothe your fear, sure, go ahead. Other stats say that if you have a gun, you are more likely to use it to threaten than to defend. Perhaps that comes from the frustration of not using it.

Alaska has the highest gun ownership and gun death rates. New York is near the other end of both scales, and there is a strong state by state correlation. Alaska doesn’t have gang problems, so what’s the deal with that?

Alaska has the highest gun ownership and gun death rates. New York is near the other end of both scales, and there is a strong state by state correlation. Alaska doesn’t have gang problems, so what’s the deal with that?

Well again, your simple minded control knob theory just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. There are many factors other than the number of guns in private hands per capita which affect gun death rates:

TANANA, Alaska — The 4-H club in this Yukon River village began out of desperation. It was maybe four years ago when Cynthia Erickson, who owns the local store, found herself one night in the sanctuary of the Catholic Church with the body of a sweet 20-something village youth. He had shot himself in the face. She cleaned him up the best she could, she said, and then she went outside to throw up.

There were so many suicides leading up to that one. Six she could think of right away in Tanana and neighboring villages on the river: five men and one young girl. Alaska Native men have the highest suicide rate in the country. Her brother-in-law was on her list. He hanged himself, leaving five children. There are dozens of theories about why suicide is so common in Alaskan villages….

Erickson is no stranger to loss. She is half Alaska Native and was raised in Ruby, a small community a four-hour boat ride down the Yukon. Her parents owned the store. Her dad was a bush pilot, and her mother was a health aide. She had seven siblings, three of them adopted. Her oldest brother died in a plane crash. Her sister, once Ruby’s postmaster, was beaten and shot to death. Her youngest brother drowned. Her adopted brother died when a nighttime dispute in Fairbanks turned into a shooting.

Violence, suicides and accidents are just a part of rural life, she said.

“If you don’t live in the village, you don’t understand it. I can’t begin to explain,” Erickson said. “Compared to the urban world, we’re faced with death almost daily … The kids are just in the background. It doesn’t even faze ’em.”

On a mission to show his complete and utter lack of knowledge about firearms is no impediment to commenting repeatedly on the topic.

He offers up such insightful comments such as:

” …do you need an AR-15 to defend yourself or even hunt?”

“If you look at the people who have died from these types of weapons in the US, the vast majority of them are not people you would have wanted dead.”

” … how many countries have societies like the one you envisage where the person with the biggest gun has the most power? ”

“Their (i.e. NRA’s) biggest fear is the military.”

“This thing about guns for protection at home is also not rational. If armed people come into your home, is it better to comply and hand over your valuables, or get out your gun and start a gunfight? ” (and a bunch of other idi0tic statements following this one)

“If I lived in a neighborhood where I thought this was a real risk, my first course of action would be to move.”

Lets take them in order:

Need an AR-15? One never knows until the time comes. To quote a Christian Slattery line “Clarence, it’s better to have a gun and not need it, than need a gun and not have it.” If you don’t agree with that sentiment, fine. Just don’t be surprised if you become a victim. A real victim, not the manufactured sort we see or hear about so often these days. As far as effectiveness goes, an AR-15 is an excellent weapon to defend oneself. Why do you think so many are sold or that just about every law enforcement agency uses them?

Don’t know about you Jim, but I can’t think of a single person I want to see dead. I’ll bet that holds true for almost everyone. You bringing this up could be an indication that you should never be allowed a firearm. As for the “vast majority of them”, those would be people who killed themselves. We currently have states which allow assisted suicide. Why is it somehow bad if a gun is the means to end one’s life?

Name a society where the person “with the biggest gun” has the most power? You are making stuff up again Jim. What is true is that the person or persons who achieve a monopoly on the means of force also have a monopoly on power. Unlike Jim D, the founding fathers knew their history and understood the importance of ensuring this did not happen.

The NRA’s biggest fear is not the military. You are making that up. I doubt you know even one thing about the NRA. The NRA’s biggest concern is a$$wipe politicians like Michael Bloomberg, who is surrounded by armed security personnel, succeeding in convincing people like Jim D that guns are bad and should not be allowed.

Not sure it is even worth commenting on the next one on the list. It is that ridiculous.

Jim D’s first instinct might be to move to another neighborhood, but that is usually not an option for most people. But then Jim wouldn’t know that because Jim is completely clueless on the issue.

timg56, statistically it is more dangerous to the residents to have a gun in the home than not. You just bring an added danger into your home with that gun. But that’s just what the stats say. I won’t give an opinion.

“statistically it is more dangerous to the residents to have a gun in the home than not”

Yeah right. Keep referencing research which has been discredited. Kind of like the research which said people who are politically conservative are more likely to hold authoritative views and/or likely to be psychotic. Oh, wait a minute, they got the sign wrong on the spreadsheet. It is people who are politically liberal who are more likely to exhibit those characteristics.

The risk for death from firearm suicide is highest among white males over age 75 (1)
Source: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.]
1. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WISQARS database. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/. Accessed April 18, 2005.

The first thing they scream out is that owning a motor vehicle is deadly dangerous. People shouldn’t be allowed to own private vehicles.

Then there is the suicide issue, which accounts for about 2/3rd’s of firearm related deaths. Seeing as it is old white men who are the most likely to check out with a gun, maybe it isn’t such a bad thing. For we all know old white guys are the primary root of all that ails our society.

In Plano everyone has a gun and yet the homicide rate is among the lowest. In the US despite a sharp rise in gun ownership the homicide rate has been cut in half. Please explain that Jim. In Sweden every one has a gun and yet the murder rate is among the lowest . Please, please explain it to me. There has to be an answer so I can it to my knuckle dragging conservative friends.

If you take gun deaths, not always homicides, you get the correlation between gun death rates and gun ownership rates. This is particularly clear state by state in the US. Alaska is the highest in both categories and has six times the ownership rate and four times the gun death rate of New York, for example, which is near the low end.

Plano was just low on intentional homicides. If it goes anything like the states, gun deaths would be quite high there. Even if you look closely at the national homicide rate they were so proud of in the video with the US not being in the top 100, you find few European countries with them (mainly former Soviet countries), and the western European countries almost all have rates three to five times lower than the US.

It is hard to explain Alaska that way, but tightening up gun laws so criminals can’t get them would help with the problem. Switzerland has a high gun ownership rate, but has tight laws including gun registration, so their murder rate is also much lower than the US. Decent laws seem to make a big difference.

As far as effectiveness goes, an AR-15 is an excellent weapon to defend oneself.

So is a 12 gauge pump action shotgun loaded with 00 buck. Unless you’re planning on being invaded by 49 burglars at the same time, you’re probably not going to require the rate of fire afforded by a semi-automatic rifle — whether it be an AR-15 pattern weapon, a Mini-14 or even a trusty surplus SKS — with a full-capacity magazine. As well, all the same arguments upthread about the chances of being killed by a firearm apply equally as well to the chances of being killed in a home invasion — it’s effectively nil.

I warrant that only the truly paranoid see it as vital to their survival to posses civilianized versions of military assault rifles. Everyone else probably just doesn’t want their cool toys taken away from them — can’t say I exactly blame them. However, when the NRA won’t even let a Republican-majority Senate disallow sales of such weapons to folks on FBI watchlists, I’ve kind of got to wonder which party really is more concerned with the domestic security of its own citizens. Just sayin’.

Perhaps I should reconsider. It does occur to me that a good number of 2nd Amendment stalwarts probably *are* on FBI watchlists.

The Dimwits could have had their useless bill passed if they just would have included a due process clause. They didn’t want that so they could crow about how Republicans wanting to sell weapons to terrorists. They counted on the ignorance and stupidity of their followers and they were right, as you have proven.

An ignorant stupid person would not have written the final paragraph having recognized that no due process is required to earn a spot on an FBI watch list. It might also occur to a person who is not stupid and/or ignorant that Republicans may have required a due process provision knowing the Dems wouldn’t go for it.

Sensible folk know that politicians play politics, and one rule of that game is not telling the public everything they’d otherwise wish to know.

“An ignorant stupid person would not have written the final paragraph having recognized that no due process is required to earn a spot on an FBI watch list”…..That was the point. No due process for the FBI watch list and no due process to deprive those that would be deprived of their rights to purchase a gun. Where should we eliminate due process next? I guess when it’s your causes and your people ignoring principles of law it’s pretty cool. My next question is why do you think the Demwits wouldn’t go for the due process clause?

CIA Chief Just Confirmed “War on Terror” Has Created A Lot More Terrorists

Where have you been? The libruhl media has been all over this for a while now:

———————

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists’ costs of millions.~Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense, October 16, 2003

***

With President Bush’s domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting, “Terrorism War.” Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don’t call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War. There is terrorism in Northern Ireland against the Brits. There is terrorism in India and in Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not make right – right makes might. Acting militarily, we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.~Sen. Ernest Hollings (D) South Carolina, May 10, 2004

***

According to the New York Times, which has spoken to officials who have either read it, or been involved in drafting it, the report says the invasion and occupation of Iraq has spawned a new generation of Islamic radicalism that has spread across the globe.

It also warns that Islamic militants who have fought in Iraq could foment radicalism and violence when they return to their home countries, much as returning Jihadis did after the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Al-Qaeda threat

It reportedly concludes that, while al-Qaeda may have been weakened since the 11 September 2001 attacks, the radical Islamic movement worldwide has strengthened with the formation of new groups and cells who are inspired by Osama Bin Laden, but not under his direct control.

But White House spokesman Peter Watkins hit back at the newspaper’s report, saying: “Their [terrorists’] hatred for freedom and liberty did not develop overnight, those seeds were planted decades ago.

“Instead of waiting while they plot and plan attacks to kill innocent Americans, the United States has taken the initiative to fight back.”

In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not make right – right makes might. Acting militarily, we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated. ~Sen. Ernest Hollings (D) South Carolina, May 10, 2004

“Diplomacy and negotiation.” That sounds a lot closer to what Donald Trump is advocating than the permanent Warfare State Hillary Clinton is advocating.

And Trump is the only candidate to have unequivocally condemned George Bush and the other neocons (including Killary Klinton) who got us into the Iraq quagmire:

It was only a few days ago when, flanked by 19 American flags, Hillary Clinton embarked on a foreign policy magna opus….

The money quote – for the whole world to mull – could not be more explicit; the United States “is exceptional – the last best hope on earth.” As in accept our hegemony – or else.

Every sentient being remotely familiar with Hillary Clinton’s record knows by now that, if elected, she will preside over a Warfare State – which, incidentally, is bound to further bankrupt Washington.

Spending on the defense/security/surveillance complex will balloon way beyond the current $850 billion a year….

Hillary Clinton’s record shows that she fully supported Bubba’s military adventures in the Balkans, Dubya’s disastrous wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and Obama’s Afghan surge. But her masterpiece as Secretary of State was of course the destruction of Libya – followed by her enthusiastic support for weaponizing “moderate rebels”, a.k.a hardcore jihadis, in Syria….

Libya was the battling ground supposed to gloriously elevate the Clinton Doctrine to the apex of foreign policy smartness….

But alas, even with “We Came, We Saw, He Died” the descent of Libya into a militia hell scotched all those elaborate plans. It was – and remains – more of a case of I came, I Saw and I Got Tangled Up in Benghazi….

If the prospect of seeing the whole world turned into a giant Libya was not enough, public opinion all across the Global South must also get to grips with what arguably will become the most terrifying words in the English language: Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

Prior to the February 17, 2011, “Day of Rage,” Libya had a national budget surplus of 8.7 percent of GDP in 2010, with oil production at 1.8 million barrels per day, on track to reach its goal of 3 million barrels per day. Currently, oil production has decreased by over 80 percent. Following the revolution, the Libyan economy contracted by an estimated 41.8 percent, with a national deficit of 17.1 percent GDP in 2011.

Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September 11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.

Within weeks of the revolution there were two valid cease-fire opportunities, one presented to the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and a second opportunity presented to U.S. Africa Command for direct military commander negotiations to effect Gaddafi’s abdication, in which I was personally involved. Both opportunities were rejected and shut down by Secretary Clinton….

Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent “bloodshed in Benghazi” at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of the Libyan Rebel Brigade commanders, Ahmed Abu Khattala, would later be involved in the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012….

Secretary Clinton’s war actually did make a difference. It led to a very real and very tragic humanitarian disaster. Her bad judgment and failed policy resulted in the arming of terrorists, months of war and tens of thousands of causalities, the murder of the American ambassador and the deaths of three other brave Americans, continued civil war and the collapse of the Libyan economy, and a failed nation-state contributing to a tragic European migrant crisis. Clearly the Libyan disaster tops Secretary Clinton’s legacy of failure….

America can no longer continue to support Hillary’s legacy of failure in Libya.

Wall Street has thrown its weight behind Hillary Clinton. Some of the biggest names in the U.S. right-wing establishment have also expressed support for her.

Another neocon added his name to the pro-Clinton list on Thursday. James Kirchick penned an op-ed in The Daily Beast titled “Hillary Clinton Is 2016’s Real Conservative—Not Donald Trump.”

“Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss,” he says….

Trump is “a brashly authoritarian populist,” Kirchick continues—a “charlatan, a gruesome amalgamation of the Monopoly Man and Elmer Gantry,” who is transforming “the Republican Party into an ethno-nationalist populist movement.”….

“In the center remains Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her manifold faults, is the only candidate promising some form of economic, social and political continuity with the present,” Kirchick concludes.

Clinton is “the clear conservative choice,” he maintains, the only one who can preserve the status quo.

Kirchick is a hawkish pundit and fellow at Foreign Policy Initiative, a neoconservative think tank where leading neocons Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan sit on the board of directors.

Kagan, who served as foreign policy adviser to Republican Sen. John McCain in his 2008 presidential campaign and has been described as “the neoconservative movement’s chief foreign policy theorist,” has also strongly come out in support of Clinton….

Kirchick and Kagan have joined numerous right-wing confrères in endorsing Clinton for president.

Max Boot, a hard-line war hawk and self-declared “American imperialist,” lauded Clinton in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times in May.

“Clinton would be far preferable to Trump,” Boot wrote, describing her as “a centrist Democrat who is more hawkish than President Obama….

Fellow neocon Bret Stephens also expressed support for Clinton in May, in an op-ed titled “Hillary: The Conservative Hope.”…

As secretary of state, Clinton pushed the U.S. to join NATO’s catastrophic bombing campaign in Libya in 2011, which plunged the oil-rich North African nation into chaos. Thousands of people have been killed since the U.S.-backed regime change operation, extremist groups have flourished and ISIS has carved out its largest so-called caliphate outside of Iraq and Syria.

In addition to her role in pushing for the war on Libya, Sec. Clinton wrote off diplomacy in the war in Syria, instead calling for backing the “hard men with the guns.”

These extremely belligerent policies, along with Clinton’s support for the illegal invasion of Iraq, the U.S. drone program, Israel’s far-right government and more, led The New York Times to dub her “the last true hawk left in the race.”….

Clinton, Kirchick argues, is the candidate that will prevent “large and indefinite” changes; she is the candidate of reaction, the president who will resist “systematic change.”

Like liberal elites, Kirchick also condescendingly writes off Trump’s working-class supporters as “too stupid,” writing, “he long ago preemptively humiliated any purported ‘intellectual’ supporter when he declared his ‘love’ for ‘the poorly educated’ voters flocking to his campaign, the kind of thing tin-pot dictators believe but don’t say for fear of offending their base.”

“Hillary Clinton’s catastrophic immigration plan will bring vastly more radical Islamic immigration into this country, threatening not only our society but our entire way of life,” he charged. “When it comes to radical Islamic terrorism, ignorance is not bliss. It’s deadly — totally deadly.” He accused Clinton of wanting to “allow radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country. They enslave women and they murder gays. I don’t want them in our country.”

And Trump is the only candidate to have unequivocally condemned George Bush and the other neocons (including Killary Klinton) who got us into the Iraq quagmire:

He was at best ambivalent in the runup to the invasion, saying things like he wished Dubya would decide one way or the other already. After the resounding success of the initial campaign, he was positively optimistic — saying things like it would be good for the stock market and that it would “be very interesting to see what kind of weapons they find.”

What would one expect from someone like Killary, a quintessential neocon no different from Bush?

You mean other than suggesting real diplomacy in contrast to The Decider’s hamfisted “you’re either with us or against us” rhetoric?

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world. […] So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein: This is your last chance; disarm or be disarmed.

I find it intriguiging that anyone could come to the conclusion that Clinton is not a neocon of the nth degree, despite the overwhelming evidence that she is.

I find it intriguing that anyone could come to the conclusion that Trump is more qualified for the office than Hillary is, despite the overwhelming evidence that he isn’t.

To come to such a conclusion requires some real logical gymnastics, not to speak of a total remoteness from factual reality.

The only plausible similarities I find between her and neoconservatives is her foreign policy, which is decidedly interventionist, and that progressives/democratic socialists really don’t like her. In that sense, branding her a neocon was a good strategy. I might be a tad sorry it didn’t work, but I’m far from crestfallen.

From Billary’s record, we KNOW she isn’t fit to be dog catcher, much less leader of the free world. After all, who do you want answering the phone call from Benghazi at 2:30 in the morning? Not Billary. But that’s just one of many problems with her.

At least with Trump, we have a shot at a good President, but not with Billary.

After all, who do you want answering the phone call from Benghazi at 2:30 in the morning?

Easy. Someone who has actually gotten that phone call and stood for public scrutiny of her decisions after the fact.

But that’s just one of many problems with her.

Well duh, she’s a Democrat.

At least with Trump, we have a shot at a good President, but not with Billary.

Unfortunately the only way to find out for sure is for both of them to become president, which is impossible. Just on a wild hunch, I’m going to support the candidate with relevant experience (including mistakes to have learned from), a sense of decorum and more than a smidgen of diplomatic sense.

In that sense, branding her a neocon was a good strategy….[I]t didn’t work….

There’s that Warmist/Alarmist mindset of the totalitarian again, stating one’s own prediction as if it were already a done deal.

There’s that lovely tactic of partisan hackery; twisting words around to build strawmen. Where’s the Integrity, Glenn? I wasn’t predicting that Hillary will win the primary against Bernie, was I. My hunch that she’ll carry the general is just that, a hunch, with no small amount of hope.

I hope with less confidence the C pre-pended to AGW by its unethical detractors proves false.

Please do continue to demonstrably lie about what other people say, Glenn. And thanks ever so much for your helpful assistance up to this point.

Instead of arguing that there is not such a thing as “the gays,” that the LGBT community is a highly diverse group of individuals with a wide range of opinions, attitudes, beliefs and values, the authors instead attempt to impose their own pet stereotype upon “the gays.”

UPDATE 1130 GMT: The Russian Foreign Ministry has responded to the internal dissent by 51 State Department staff which calls for military action against the Assad regime.

Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called on the Obama Administration to keep the officials in line, invoking recent cases:

Those mistakes that were made by US and all illegal coalitions in Iraq and in other places on regime change, on military solution, on absence of professional approach toward resolving the conflict – they will not be forgotten after all.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he knew nothing about the State Department memorandum, but he warned:

Calls for overthrowing authorities in other countries can hardly be welcomed in Moscow. Moreover, liquidating a regime will hardly facilitate successful progress in the fight against terrorism. It can make the region plunge in total chaos.

Maybe the diplomats could call for a plan to make sure F35s can actually get off the ground when necessary.

Or a plan to pay off the US national debt.

Maybe a plan to bomb total strangers for no good reason demonstrates the foolishness of the people proposing it. The US experience in overcoming nominally inferior forces in the past doesn’t exactly fill one with confidence.

It might be a good idea to look at the size of the bear’s teeth and claws before poking him with a pointy stick.

Secretary of State John Kerry this week acknowledged twice that the Islamic State and the threat of terrorism around the world is bigger threat than climate change, even though he has insisted in past years that climate is the bigger threat.

Kerry revealed his subtle change of thinking during his trip to Europe, where he twice indicated that when it comes to global threats, terrorism is first, and climate change is a very close second.

“[L]et me just say that one of the greatest challenges of our times besides the fight against extremism is to deal with the enormous battle of climate change,” he said in Denmark Thursday. The phrase “besides the fight against extremism” indicates he sees terrorism as the top threat.

He made a similar comment in Norway on Wednesday, when at first seemed prepared to say climate is the bigger issue, but then conceded that terrorism ranks at the top.

JC, so why did you choose to put this in the Presidential Election thread, seeing as the linked article has nothing to say on the matter?

OK, I’m being slightly mischievous. It was a rhetorical question. I can imagine some parallels.

I’m undecided how I’m going to vote, but I am also curious to see what further negotiating ploys (which seem to be mostly threats from the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come) will emerge in the next few days.

From the article:
…
Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper declined to speak with a Breitbart News reporter on Friday about the Orlando terror attack, saying: “You are anti-Muslim bigots.”
CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation.

The demise of jobs … from the article:
…
These robots are not only more efficient but they also take up less space than their human counterparts. That means warehouse design can eventually be modified to have more shelf space and less wide aisles. At the end of the third quarter of 2015, Amazon was using 30,000 Kiva robots across 13 warehouses. Each Kiva-equipped warehouse can hold 50% more inventory per square foot than centers without robots. In turn, the company’s operating costs have been sliced by 20% — or almost $22 million — per warehouse. If Kiva robots are dispatched to the rest of the 110 Amazon warehouses, the tech giant could save almost $2.5 billion, according to Deutsche Bank. However, since it takes $15-$20 million to install robots in each warehouse, the one-time savings is expected to be closer to $800 million.
…https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/06/17/196233/robots-in-amazons-warehouses-are-already-making-a-huge-difference

Close to half a million people are dead in Syria, as the country falls further and further into oblivion… Trust is in short supply. The peace process is weak. Brutality is the mood.

What should America do? In the eyes of 51 U.S. diplomats who still haven’t grasped the negative outcomes of the disastrous wars launched since 2002, the solution is to bomb the world into America’s image. In an internal dissent cable addressed to Barack Obama, seasoned diplomats have urged airstrikes on the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria….

Push Obama, Elevate Clinton

Why did the diplomats write their dissent now, and why was it leaked to the press?….

Do the diplomats expect that President Obama would read their cable and rush to a bombing raid, which he has resisted?….

It is now well established that in 2011 Obama was loathe to enter the Libyan conflict.

It was the French who were most eager, and it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who carried the French message to Obama. She and U.S Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power convinced Obama to endorse the NATO move into Libya.

There is little indication that Obama wants to expand the chaos in Syria by bombing the Syrian Arab Army and the institutions of state in Damascus.

A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton. Could they have leaked this cable to boost Clinton’s narrative that she wanted a more robust attack on Damascus as early as 2012? Is this a campaign advertisement for Clinton, and a preparation for her likely Middle East policy when she takes power in 2017?

Clinton certainly advocated tougher military action in Syria. She joined CIA chief David Petraeus to push for a U.S.-backed rebel army in 2012, and she argued for air strikes when there was no appetite for this in the White House.

Last year, Clinton called for the creation of a no-fly zone, a seemingly innocuous term that would have provided the pretext for Syria to hit either U.S. or Turkish aircraft and then escalate the conflict into full-scale war.

If anyone carries the torch for these diplomats, it is Hillary Clinton. Her sensibility toward regime change seems shared by these people. War, for them, is not the breakdown of diplomacy; it is an instrument of diplomacy.

Ambassador Freeman says that the diplomats, in their cable, “embrace the use of force without linking it to any diplomatic strategy and accept the oft-disproven assumption that regime change will produce peace rather than additional political complexity or anarchy.” This is the most curious part of the cable, which does not have a detailed assessment of what would come after Assad….

The “dissent channel,” said the former ambassador who worked in the Middle East, should work as “an internal means of presenting ideas and opinions to the leadership.” But this action, with the move to publicity, will not help the aims of U.S. diplomacy. Nor will it help the Syrian people.

The cable blames Obama for not striking Syria earlier and asks that he do so now.

But Obama did not strike Syria in 2013 because he recognized, correctly, that the Russians, Chinese and most of the major countries of the Global South (including India) deeply opposed regime change.

It was to finally stop any consideration of regime change that the Russians directly intervened in 2015. The deployment of Russian S-400 surface-to-air missiles would put any U.S. bombing raid into direct confrontation with the Russians.

This is a very dangerous situation. Older habits of U.S. uni-polarity, developed from Gulf War 1 in 1990, no longer apply to an increasingly multi-polar world.

It is not Obama’s timidity that led to the failure of aerial bombardment in Syria, as the diplomats contend, but it has been the rising confidence of certain world powers to confront U.S. preponderance. That this is not evident to the diplomats suggests they have a poor understanding of the world…..

The most important internal criticism of U.S. policy came in 1971 from Dhaka, when the U.S. Consul General Archer Blood sent a telegram to Washington critical of U.S. backing of Pakistan over its massacres in (what was then) East Pakistan.

“Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy,” he wrote on behalf of 19 other diplomats in what would later be called the Blood Telegram.

It was an indictment of U.S. power.

The Blood Telegram suggested that the U.S. backing for Pakistan gave it confidence to continue with its massacres in its eastern province. It called upon the U.S. to put pressure on Pakistan not to act in this way.

Secretary of State Kissinger was furious. Blood was recalled to Washington and sidelined.

Friedman’s points that Mexican illegal immigration is not a problem in the last five years is very weak. The public understands that illegal immigration is a long term problem that fluctuates with the economy and border enforcement. Also, the enforcement is not only to protect the domestic labor market and entitlement abuse, it’s to protect against drug smuggling and crime, much of which is perpetrated on the poor souls that are enticed by the weak border.

Friedman is correct that “Trump is a chameleon,” (aka a pragmatic businessman who adapts market changes). A businessman is only sticks to ideological guns when it comes to beliefs in markets and negotiating with people. All else is on the table.

Also, the enforcement is not only to protect the domestic labor market and entitlement abuse, it’s to protect against drug smuggling and crime, much of which is perpetrated on the poor souls that are enticed by the weak border.

Let’s recognize that perhaps part of the violence problem spilling across the borders from Matamoros into Brownsville and Tijuana into San Diego is because our own War on Drugs in Columbia was so effective. But here I’m only pointing out an ancillary irony. The root problem is that the *demand* for recreational drugs drives the market for it, not the supply. The free market solution would be to undo what Prohibition should have already taught us does not work.

Let’s also recognize that the kinds of jobs undocumented workers are doing are not in the high paying professions the middle classes have either lost to outsourced cheap labor, or insourced H1-B work visas.

Let’s further recognize that the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US are not all here for the drug trade, and that they have a particular incentive to be otherwise law abiding so that they don’t get deported away from the employment they came here seeking.

Let’s even further recognize that undocumented laborers pay taxes. If not by virtue of their forged birth certificates and fake social security registrations, certainly by virtue of property taxes paid by their landlords and sales taxes paid to local economies for the goods they consume same as everyone else. You also won’t catch them collecting food stamps, nor the social security benefits they’d be due if their fake registrations were legit.

In sum, for anyone who thinks that deporting 11 million people then building a wall to ostensibly keep them from returning to solve a drug “problem” most of them are not causing represents a cost savings over the “entitlement” expenses they’re causing, well, Trump’s probably *also* got some oceanfront property in Paraguay to sell you. It’s great. Absolutely fantastic … I mean look, everyone is saying how great it is. You’ll love it.

I have been observing the election from overseas and I have come to the conclusion that the left and the MSM are feeling very confident. They are having a field day with Trump and are reveling in the certainty of Hillary’s victory. They need only to point out that Trump is a divisive insulter and a racist homophobe misogynist and a hater and his supporters are violent gun nuts and just a few ignorant rednecks that are Impervious to enlightenment anyway. Yes, that’s all they need to do because everybody (but the stupid rednecks) know that we can’t have a toxic hater in the White House. Everybody else will know that they must vote for Hillary because She has experience and She has always shown integrity and never lies. Hillary has served the public all Her life and She is backed by the smartest and richest business people and Hollywood stars and above all She is a She! Hillary has always identified as a Woman and even her doctor when she was born identified her as a Woman and the next President of the United States must be a Woman and Trump will never identify as a Woman so Hillary is the only Woman in the race! So, you see my friends, the carnival atmosphere and the shrill headlines at the WaPo and HuffPo and NYT have nothing in common with the hysteria and panic that is gripping the ancient and calcified Republican establishment – NO! They are a joyous celebration of Her Imminent Inauguration. Halleluiah!

While we won’t be surprised with a decision not to indict, it would nevertheless be demoralizing. If the law doesn’t apply to those with political power, then the law is a farce and our politicians are more like kings and queens than citizen lawmakers. Revolutions have started for less than that.

Oh! The irony: “Obama is fast becoming the ace up Clinton’s sleeve, a figure who, by comparison with Trump at least, now appears a unifier.”

“For Clinton, there could hardly be a better reminder of her credentials as a grown-up – and a more experienced commander-in-chief – than her old boss.”

You glossed over far bigger ironies in the previous paragraphs:

But just as some in Europe are now hoping that the assassination of the British MP Jo Cox could mark a turning point in the anti-immigration mood surrounding Britain’s referendum on EU membership, Trump’s response to Orlando looks as if it may mark a high water point in the nationalist tide that has engulfed the US presidential election.

Coming swiftly after his criticism of a judge’s Mexican heritage, Trump’s apparent blanket attack on Muslim Americans was too much for many Republicans in Congress.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said he “was not going to be commenting on presidential candidates”, even though campaigning is now in full swing. Bob Corker, another elder statesman recently seen as Trump’s most likely running mate, said he was “discouraged” by the words of his party’s presumptive nominee.

In this context, Rubio’s appearance aboard Air Force One alongside Obama and Joe Biden was more than just a Florida courtesy. Something had snapped.

This was the same Senator Rubio who, as a Republican presidential candidate, had spent much of the year attacking Obama as unfit to lead. This was perhaps the fiercest critic of White House foreign policy throughout the 2016 campaign, coming to the scene of an Islamic State-inspired terrorist attack and making clear he stood with the president, not his party’s likely nominee.

This weekend, rumours are swirling again in Washington of one final bid to deprive Trump of his place as the Republican nominee when the party convention meets in Cleveland next month.

Late on Friday Sean Spicer, communications director of the Republican National Committee, was forced to remind plotters that Trump has “bested 16 highly qualified candidates and received more primary votes than any candidate in Republican history”.

Yet many Republicans fear not just the prospect of losing the White House in a landslide this November, but also ceding control of the Senate and House of Representatives. If Trump is at the top of the ballot, their party’s brand could be tarnished for a generation. Democrats are compiling a growing list of GOP figures willing to back their nemesis, Hillary Clinton, rather than contemplate Trump any longer.

It is not just disarray in the Republican party that is bringing Washington’s political establishment slowly back together. Obama himself is undergoing a renaissance in popularity, hitting his highest approval ratings since 2012 just as Trump hits new record lows.

It’s almost enough to restore my faith in the GOP’s collective sanity after the neocon debacle and Tea Party-inspired government shutdown experiment. And it’s not exactly if the Graun is looking the other way on Hillary’s weak spots.

Admittedly, one probably needs to visit The Times for the really juicy stuff. Where we’d be without Rupert’s balanced fairness … well, you can’t explain that.

Wake me up when all politicians are honest, have never completely fouled up something … and the entire MSM is owned by Pravda’s parent organization.

Like so many bullies, Trump has skin of gossamer. He thinks nothing of saying the most hurtful thing about someone else, but when he hears a whisper that runs counter to his own vainglorious self-image, he coils like a caged ferret. Just to drive him a little bit crazy, I took to referring to him as a “short-fingered vulgarian” in the pages of Spy magazine. That was more than a quarter of a century ago. To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers. I almost feel sorry for the poor fellow because, to me, the fingers still look abnormally stubby.

Willard, Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle KStJ, DL, had the view that our minds were an attic and we should all be very careful with what we desire to put into it, since the space is finite. Don’t worry.

It is true that after a few days, when these presidential threads begin to die, that jim2 and I pretty much have the place to ourselves, and most of the comments are ours.

Nevertheless, you are always welcome to chime in.

I’m sure people get bored with things like the economy, foreign policy and domestic security, and are waiting with baited breath to hear more about the things in life that really matter, like the size of Donald Trump’s hands.

I’m sure people get bored with things like the economy, foreign policy and domestic security, and are waiting with baited breath to hear more about the things in life that really matter, like the size of Donald Trump’s hands.

I know right? Freedom Fighters everywhere should be talking about Trump’s threat to censor the Tiny Hands PAC over something so trivial.

Re: more important issues — perhaps you should ask the French how the Maginot Line worked out for them.

> So you’re another one who, like Willard, would rather make the election about the size of Donald Trump’s hands […]

I love the sound of that false dichotomy, Glenn, so much in fact that I may have some time to play along. Last time we played you had problems understanding a single sentence. While it was from a scholar, it was still one you yourself were quoting.

Here’s Garrison on Ducktail Donald:

He is a little old for a ducktail. By the age of 70, most ducks have moved on, but not Donald. He is apparently still fond of the sidewalls and the duck’s ass in back and he is proud as can be of his great feat, the first punk candidate to get this close to the White House. He says that the country is run by a bunch of clowns and that he is going to make things great again and beat up on the outsiders who are coming into our neighborhood. His followers don’t necessarily believe that — what they love about him is what kids loved about Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious, the fact that he horrifies the powers that be and when you are pro-duck you are giving the finger to Congress, the press, clergy, lawyers, teachers, cake-eaters, big muckety-mucks, VIPs, all those people who think they’re better than you — you have the power to scare the pants off them, and that’s what this candidate does better than anybody else.

We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

Fel0n rights upon discharge of sentence are up to individual states. Some restore voting rights and some don’t. If right to vote can be taken away then so can right to own a gun. Right to drive on public roads is already subject to forfeiture and is routinely done for certain felonies such as drunk driving. With regard to constitutionality of this that’s up to SCOTUS to decide. I don’t know if it’s ever been brought before them for guns and voting but for driver’s licences, which aren’t protected by the constitution, it probably hasn’t risen that far because there’s no case to be made.

Hey dopey, voting is a civil right and the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right. Civil rights are legal rights which can legally be granted by governments and what can legally be granted can legally be taken away. Unalienable rights are not granted by governments and there is no lawful authority to take those rights away.

Mr. Trump has figured out how to take religion out of the immigration picture and what he is saying makes perfect sense. In fact, it is perfect – no Constitutional issues, fake or otherwise. We use profiling to determine who can immigrate (legally of course) to the US. From the article:
…
Donald Trump called for a temporary ban on immigration from areas with “a proven history of terrorism” in a Monday speech delivered in response to Sunday’s shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla.
…http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283299-trump-suspend-immigration-from-areas-with-proven-history

“MF, read what JPZ is saying and see if you agree with him. He won’t let you ban felons from driving or even getting guns. OK with you? Next he will say terrorist suspects can also get guns even as we learn a lesson why not.”

Unfortunately, you haven’t really specified what parts of JPZs philosophy you are trying to get me to disagree with.

If a felon has stopped felonising, why should he be banned from driving? How do you organise that? Strike off his hands and feet? Tear out his eyeballs, perhaps?

Is a felon not entitled to the same rights under the constitution to bear arms? What about protecting the family if threatened by gun toting cr1minals? Felons are denied the rights guaranteed by your constitution?

As to terrorist suspects, I believe that people in the US are supposedly presumed innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law. Suspicion is not proof of guilt. Terrorism is an emotive word used to whip a gullible population into a frenzy, and usually aimed at a particular group, be it religious or ethnic. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Just look at the situation in Syria, or many other places.

So yes, Jim D, I support the rule of law, generally. If I no longer agree with the actions of the lawmakers, I might even consider taking up arms against them. As did the Americans against the British during the American Revolution. I believe that was mainly about dissatisfaction with taxation, a minor matter one would have thought.

Terrorists destroyed private property out of spite, the authorities introduced anti-terrorism laws, and the situation rapidly got worse, or better, depending on your point of view. Things have changed.

The US imprisons more of its population than any other country. It doesn’t seem to reduce crime rates proportionally. It doesn’t seem to stop people like Timothy McVeigh killing 168 innocent civilians, because he wanted to. Threats of punishment, such as the death penalty, appear to be relatively ineffective against suicide bombers. Luckily, most suicide bombers seem not terribly bright, and often Inflict a death sentence on themselves, leaving others relatively unscathed.

Sorry to be so long winded, but I don’t believe that trite and facile sound grabs or one liners are the answer. Just as calling for action to “halt climate change”! What then? Silly, just silly!

From the article:
…
A number of gay men who have decided to throw their support behind Trump told NBC OUT it has not been an easy road. Juan Hernandez, a gay and Latino member of the Log Cabin Republicans, said his support led to physical violence by anti-Trump protesters at a rally in San Jose. Images of the attack and his bloodied clothes went viral.

From the article:
…
Well, I think we’re going to get unity … But let me give advice to my Republican colleagues: They need to look at the election returns. They need to understand that the American people are not happy with gridlock in America. They’re not happy their wages have fallen since 2000 steadily. They’re not happy that we have high unemployment. They’re not happy that we have an open border and lawlessness at our border. They believe we should have a lawful system of immigration that serves their interests. They don’t believe these trade deals have worked [for] them. So I think that our leaders on both sides need to be considering what the American people are saying in this election, and they need to be a part of the unity too … meaning they need to be participating in fixing some of these things. We haven’t been effective in fixing illegal immigration, the trade deal got a lot of votes and support in Congress from Democrats and Republicans. So I think there’s a lot of things that we need to learn from the American people.
…http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/19/watch-jeff-sessions-fox-chris-wallace/

Don’t make the replacement of Lewandowski more than it is. Pretty simple – Lewandowski has a big believer in letting “Trump be Trump”. That strategy seems to have succeeded, in that it got him the presumptive nomination. However the campaign now has to move on to the next phase. There is the fact Lewandowski is inexperienced in managing this phase. People who are more mainstream are willing to support Trump, but are worried that his shoot from the hip style could easily transform to loose cannon careening across the deck, taking political life and limb at each roll. This is no surprise and not evidence he is “willing to make significant changes” to appease donors.

Tim,
Agreed. And let’s not make it out to be less than what it is. It is atypical to change a campaign manager at this point in a race, especially considering the success of the campaign.

We’ll never know the behind the scenes. It’s plausible that it’s a kowtow to the ‘establishment’ and/or donors and it’s equally plausible that the national campaign is more than Trump has comfort with allowing Lew to handle.

From the article:
…
“We now have a presidential candidate who has said, ‘I’m tired of other people getting theirs first,’” he proudly hollered to raucous applause. “It is now time for America to get ours first — America first!”

Sound familiar? It should, because “America first” happens to be one of Trump’s campaign slogans. Unlike globalists such as President Barack Obama and Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton, the presumptive GOP candidate views himself as a citizen of America, not the world.

RELATED STORIES

Obama Floods America With Refugees… These 6 Diseases Just Reappeared
BREAKING: Chuck Norris Drops Bombshell… Stuns LGBT Community
Franklin Graham Calls Obama “Ridiculous” In Epic Takedown
“And because he’s thinking about us Americans, they want to call him a racist,” Pastor Burns continued, shaking his head in dismay, adding that the Democrats were simply lying.

Here is an article about the AR-15 that even the dimmest of Left-tard Dimowits should be able to understand.

From the article:
…
My point in bringing up the lever action rifle is that civilians have been buying “weapons of war” for a very long time, since the black powder musket days. This is partly because soldiers who come home from wars to enter civilian life often want to buy a version of the weapon they were trained on and trusted their life to. And it’s also because “military grade” is widely (if sometimes mistakenly) understood to mean “this technology has been tested in the real world, the kinks have been worked out, and its reliability and effectiveness have been proven in the field by an entity with the resources of an entire nation at its disposal.”
…
This is all part of the reason why I, a civilian, own a military-grade combat weapon. I don’t want to shoot and miss; I don’t want the gun to jam because it’s dirty or cold; and when I’m hunting game I don’t want to hit my target and then have it run off into the woods and die lost and wounded because I didn’t “bring enough gun.” Like my grandpa with his “military-grade” lever action rifle, I want a modern firearm that’s popular (which means parts and training are cheaply and widely available), ergonomic, rugged, accurate, and reliably effective, so that none of the aforementioned bad things happen to me when I’m shooting.
…
But, you’ll argue, isn’t the AR-15 uniquely deadly? Unlike the lever action rifle, isn’t the black rifle a weapon of godlike power, suitable only for putting as much lead on the battlefield in as short a time as possible? And in their desire to own one of these turbocharged weapons of mass slaughter, which is clearly overkill for anything but mowing down herds of humans, aren’t today’s AR-15 buyers uniquely twisted and callous? Isn’t it time that gun buyers settled for second or third or fourth best, for the “good of the their fellow citizens”?

The short answer to all of the above is “no.”
…
The AR-15 is less a model of rifle than it is an open-source, modular weapons platform that can be customized for a whole range of applications, from varmint control to taking out 500-pound feral hogs to urban combat. Everything about an individual AR-15 can be changed with aftermarket parts — the caliber of ammunition, recoil, range, weight, length, hold and grip, and on and on.

In the pre-AR-15 era, if you wanted a gun for shooting little groundhogs, a gun for shooting giant feral hogs, and a gun for home defense, you’d buy three different guns in three different calibers and configurations. With the AR platform, a person with absolutely no gunsmithing expertise can buy one gun and a bunch of accessories, and optimize that gun for the application at hand. You can even make an AR-15 into a pistol.
…

Hm. Didn’t those folks hunt, protect themselves, and do all the things that folks who use guns today do except kill 49 people in one event? (Yes, I’m aware it wasn’t an AR, but a Sig)

Maybe they were just more capable operators back then?

Interesting how the capability to cycle rounds quickly was left out of the article.

Nice try. Seems to be an awful amount of ‘fear’ out there considering there are what, just over 1700 non-suicide gun related fatalities a year out of the 30,000 or so and with over 300,000,000 folks in the U.S.

Try reading the article again, Danny. There is a VIDEO in the article that shows how fast one can cycle the rounds and reload. Obviously, you couldn’t be bothered to actually read the article before you dissed it. I’m not surprised.

The article aside, the Orlando event is a radical Islam problem, not a gun problem. You and you lefty buddies have no right to tell me what kind of gun I can own for self defense.

Jim2,
You’re correct. I didn’t read the article and responded to that which you chose to post.

W/r/t “The article aside, the Orlando event is a radical Islam problem, not a gun problem. ” Wrong! You cannot prove he was even a radical Islamic vs. just a sick minded person (sexuality issues?) who had access to a weapon with the capability of cycling thru rounds quickly.

I fine with you owning the gun, just not it being capable of cycling or holding that many rounds. My shotgun is limited by law in it’s capacity. Yours should be no different.

Again, nice try. (Actually, not all that good….just being polite). Especially since statistics posted recently show that only 1700 deaths are attributed out of some 300,000,000 folks here in the U.S. What’s to fear? It’s a miniscule quantity according to some.

You are whistling past the graveyard, Danny. How can you say we don’t know what the guy was without embarrassment? You are part of the reason incidents like Orlando happen. You choose to shut your eyes and won’t admit the truth.

OMG Jim. Now I’m responsible for Orlando just like McCain said Obama was! Off your meds today?

So was he with ISIS? al-Qaeda? Hezbollah? Or, did he have sexuality issues which conflicted with his religion leading to a breakdown? Did his inability to land the job he coveted add to issues? And can you prove any of the above? My ‘wide open’ eyes have read several theories.

Now if you chose to call him a terrorist or just a radical, on that we can agree based on his known actions. Of his religion I ‘know’ nothing.

You guys are both mired in total ignorance: The perp was a trained gunman (paywalled, sorry, but you can see it free by signing for emails, AFAIK):

There is another aspect to the attack, one that has gone mostly overlooked but one that nonetheless explains why ideology alone is not solely responsible for the magnitude of the bloodshed. Simply put, Mateen was a trained shooter, a rarity in the sordid annals of grassroots attacks. He had worked for a security contractor company called G4S for nearly a decade. As a private security guard, he possessed two firearms licenses, a statewide firearms license and a security officer license, which requires passing a criminal background test. He was a decent marksman and knew how to handle his weapons. That is all that was needed to create carnage with so many people trapped inside the nightclub.

AK,
My follow on response to Jim went to moderation and contained the question: “Did his inability to land the job he coveted add to issues?” which was a reference to that which you stated. In this case, the ignorance lies elsewhere.

My ‘wide open’ eyes have seen literature which suggests multiple potential issues with the killer not just the one which Jim finds so convenient.

AK – now tell me something I didn’t know already. This is what he was saying:

Allahu Akbar (Arabic: الله أكبر) is an Islamic phrase, called Takbir in Arabic, meaning “God is greater” or “God is [the] greatest”. Allahu Akbar or Allahu Ekber and similar variants may also refer to: Allahu Akbar (anthem), the national anthem of Libya from 1969 to 2011.

So, from your armchair, you are saying 202 rounds is impossible even for a person who has practiced and has another gun handy for anyone who gets ideas while he switches out magazines. We’ll see when the numbers come out, which they can determine from the video. For that many hits, I think 202 rounds is more likely than 30, but I am no expert.

So, from your armchair, you are saying 202 rounds is impossible even for a person who has practiced and has another gun handy for anyone who gets ideas while he switches out magazines.

You do seem to have a talent for straw-man arguments.

Nope. For a trained shooter (as this one was) 5-6 30-round magazines wouldn’t have been a problem. That was the whole point: he was a trained shooter.

For that many hits, I think 202 rounds is more likely than 30, but I am no expert.

Neither am I, but my guess is that at least half of those 202 rounds were fired by the police.

Just a guess, but mine is that he showed up with one magazine in the piece, more in a pocket or set of belt pouches. He switched magazines once, 60 rounds if they were 30-round magazines, and most of his hits were kills.

He may or may not have gotten the 3rd magazine deployed, but IMO most of the injured were by “friendly fire”. Just a guess, of course.

Hasan was a psychiatrist at Fort Hood. Based upon his questions at the gun store and shooting range, he was far far from being proficient with guns when he purchased the pistol. He went to the range and practiced, and reportedly improved dramatically. He purchased magazines and extenders. When he went on his rampage he fired 146 rounds, and hit a human being with 60% of them. They say he changed magazines so fast there was no opportunity to rush him. The two people who tried were shot to death. When he encountered an armed police officer, he shot her twice. Her gun jammed. Training is overrated. From descriptions of his behavior during the shooting, he was calm and deliberate. The next officer exchanged fire and downed him.

Yo dipthongs. I’ve been trained on that rifle by the best, the USMC. It takes less than a second to change a magazine. There’s a button on the side of the weapon. You press it with your trigger finger of the hand that’s holding the pistol grip. The spent mag drops out by gravity most riki tik. Meanwhile in your other hand you has another clip from your belt. As soon as the falling magazine clears you ram home the other one. The bolt will have locked back when the last round of the empty mag fired. There’s a thumb switch that releases it and it then chambers the next round and you’re back in business. Less than one second. Here’s a guy demonstrating.

Maybe you m0r0ns might stretch your tiny minds enough to imagine these weapons might have been designed to change magazines rapidly like that. Duh. There’s a trick to make it even faster too. You take two 30-round banana clips and tape them together. When one empties you don’t have to reach for your web belt for another magazine you just flip the one that’s in there.

AK – US terrorists have been trained in the Middle East in some cases and sometimes have traveled from the US to the Middle East to join fighting groups, are trained, then return to the US. The Paris shooters were well coordinated and appeared to be well trained on their weapons. Nidal Hasan, the Muslim who shot up Fort Hood was obviously trained.

The fact this guy had training in the US doesn’t really set him apart.

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting and really very little to do with personal protection.

It has everything to do with providing citizens with a check against abuse by government. That abuse is not an unwarranted belief in a government conspiracy. It is an acknowledgement of human nature and the amplifying effect a governmental body can have when “good intentions” are pursued by someone sure they know what is best.

But the fact that ‘we the people’ don’t have access to warplanes, carriers, bazooka’s, etc. is an indication we’d get our butt’s kicked were we to take on ‘the government’. A 30 round clip won’t do much to even things out and we know it can have negative consequences.

I’m not against the weapon, but see no need for the capability of it to shower more rounds in shorter time (again, and again, and again). The argument(s) put forward by another even by your words seems to not be strengthened.

As I stated, by shotgun is capacity limited, why not other weapons? Or why aren’t folks fighting to get access to bazookas and tanks and a nuke or two (fully operational)? And why isn’t that access granted by the same amendment?

“You cannot prove he was even a radical Islamic vs. just a sick minded person (sexuality issues?) ”

Let’s see, we have the shooter’s own words, pledging to Islam and ISIS. Then we have some media speculation and administration spin based on what? Some twitter comments and stuff his wife might have said? The wife btw who may be facing charges.

News flash Danny, people who walk into a nightclub or theater and randomly shoot people, like people who strap a vest on and blow up innocents, or toss people off of roofs due to their sexuality, or behead people because of their religion can all be classified as “sick minded”. Whether or not Mateen had sexuality issues is irrelevant. He wouldn’t have been the first. What is significant is his adhering to a religious belief system that justifies the action he took.

The beauty in debate is the allowance for disagreement.
“Whether or not Mateen had sexuality issues is irrelevant. He wouldn’t have been the first. What is significant is his adhering to a religious belief system that justifies the action he took.”
I disagree. If his religious beliefs led to internal conflict with his sexuality this could lead to a mental issue. And the pledging of allegience to groups with conflicting belief systems could have been a way to ‘cover his soul’ for ‘his afterlife’.

Let’s just cut to the chase… first we need to disarm all blacks in Shy-town and let’s see how it all settles out, close all the strip clubs at the same time. Looks like a great idea on paper ask any expert.

timg hit the nail on the head. It’s why citizens definitely need military grade weapons. Although in my mind, this is an instance of self defense.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. … Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Declaration of Independence (1776).

Jim2,
“It’s why citizens definitely need military grade weapons.” Where do you draw the line? Are you okay with my (or Mateen) ownership of an RPG? Makes your home less safe and your AR less effective. Is the guy up the street having a fully functioning tank okay? How about a B1 for Clinton to own so she can ‘protect’ herself.

We have an arbitrary line now for certain levels of weaponry and if you decide to “throw off such Government” (say a Clinton administration against the potenial of which you express just a bit of negativity ) do you think you’ll win with the level of weaponry available to you now compared to hers (or any other person in that office)? Ain’t gonna happen. “Throw off, could in fact have meant ‘vote out’ in lieu of violence.

Once you tell me you want all weapons available to all citizens I’ll look at your argument differently. Till then, it’s you making an argument that your ‘line’ is acceptable and an others view incorporating a ‘different line’ and is therefore arbitrary.

I wonder what military-grade, lever-action rifle his Grandpa was using. The US military has not used a lot lever-action rifles. Some, but not many. Custer’s men went down armed mostly with single-shot rifles. I had one of them. As a kid I used a 44-40 Marlin. Very good rifle. Never failed to shoot. I also used a Springfield 1903, which was still used in WW2… a favorite of US Marines, who worshiped its accuracy. Probably the first sniper rifle of unofficial WW2 scout-sniper units. A lot of them did not want to switch to Garands. And you know you have a real WW2 Paramarine if they know what Johnson 1941 was.

From the article:
…
The Obama Administration “grossly misrepresented” the number of crimes the criminal aliens it released from custody in FY 2014 subsequently committed by nearly tenfold, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) charges.
According to FAIR, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) records the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request on FAIR’s behalf reveal that the 30,558 criminal aliens ICE released in FY 2014 committed 13,288 additional crimes.

“I wrote that you raised a point. It goes without saying you never made a point.”

I realize people don’t read or care about Robert’s Rules of Order but long before your dumbed down generation started arbitrarily defining words, points of order were raised. When one raises a point of order, they are both raising and making a point. Your silly attempt to redefine language doesn’t change the fact you relied upon yet another straw man, and again, have you made a point?

I’ll make sure I only get into arguments with people armed with rifles, if I have the choice. Definitely avoid arguing with people who have a handgun or an unknown firearm. Oh dear, better avoid arguing with people. They might be carrying a handgun or unknown firearm on their person. Or carry a handgun or unknown firearm myself. They seem to be the most effective, according to the stats.

No civilians have shot at me yet. Maybe it’s the anti being shot pills I take. They have certainly worked so far, so they must be effective. Anybody want to buy some? Only joking, of course.

I don’t own a firearm. Personal choice. Others choose to do so. I believe some jurisdictions in the US require homeowners to possess firearms. Timothy McVeigh used a rental truck filled with home assembled explosives to kill a lot of people. The 9/11 attackers used a few civilian aircraft.

It’s generally more convenient to use firearms. Stabbing’s convenient, or a box of matches to set a fire works, if you can’t stand the sight of blood. Banning firearms might lead to unintended adverse consequences. Who knows?

Bearing in mind that you routinely exhibit little of it, let’s apply some common sense to what I wrote. If we find ourselves in a face to face exchange with someone showing visible signs of anger, it might be a good time to withdraw and call the cops if the dispute is over something of value. If it’s an argument over something trivial (“he called me stoopid”), that’s an argument we can avoid altogether.

Or we could invoke Darwin and find out who’s the fittest in all scenarios.

Chances are, the Darwin approach is the higher risk behaviour even without firearms.

I don’t own a firearm. Personal choice.

Me either, but I have plenty of friends who do. I don’t want to take their guns away from them, especially as I rather enjoy going on the occasional range outing with them.

I believe some jurisdictions in the US require homeowners to possess firearms.

Um, doubtful. But not impossible I suppose.

Timothy McVeigh used a rental truck filled with home assembled explosives to kill a lot of people.

And the response was not to outlaw truck rentals, but to track sales of ammonium nitrate-based fertilizers.

The 9/11 attackers used a few civilian aircraft.

And the response was beefed up airport security (which is admittedly somewhat a joke) and reinforced cockpit doors (which is not a joke).

But your squirrel-chasing doesn’t address the main point, which is that legally purchasing rapid-firing guns with high-capacity magazines is quite a bit easier than building ANFO bombs or taking over a civilian jetliner. About 6,000 people per year are murdered by firearm, which is the equivalent of three 9/11 attacks per year. That’s a death toll which might be worth addressing by putting some restrictions — not bans — on the types of firearms available for legal civilian use. A guy armed with a pump action shotgun or a non-repeating rifle would likely not have killed 49 people.

It’s generally more convenient to use firearms.

Yes, that’s the point.

Banning firearms might lead to unintended adverse consequences.

I’m not talking about banning firearms for civilian use. Try reading what I actually write, not what you want me to write.

I once lived in a town in North Carolina that had open carry. Saw it often. You were not required to have a handgun on your hip, but if you did, the law was it had to be loaded. Whether or not it was enforced I do not know.

Open carry I really don’t understand. I’m thinking it says “shoot me first” to the threats against which they’re supposed to protect. But what do I know, I’m just an idiot gun-hating libruhl. I suppose the reasoning is that run of the mill muggers will just go rob someone else who doesn’t look to be armed.

The always loaded stipulation is interesting. Friend of mine’s father has a concealed carry permit. Even when he’s in the house, the magazine is full with one in the chamber ready to fire, always in arm’s reach. I think he feels naked without his Glock like some people feel under-dressed without their cellphone. Not taking any chances is just his mindset.

I like Trump’s idea better. Get rid of the people doing the killing not the inanimate objects they use to do it. There are millions upon millions of assault weapons in private hands in the US. Only a vanishingly small number of them have ever been used in a mass murder. The preferred and more effective weapons are bombs and airplanes.

To the charge that assault weapons are only made for one purpose – killing human beings efficiently and rapidly at short range – that’s not quite true. The other purpose is to have a chilling effect on any organized group armed with similar weapons who would otherwise have no possibility of facing similarly armed opponents. They’re like nuclear weapons. They aren’t made to be used they’re made to stop others from using them through mutually assured destruction. At the risk of being called a racist by the usual imbeciles this situation is called a Mexican standoff.

David,
“The preferred and more effective weapons are bombs and airplanes.”
It’s tradition that when one makes an assertion one provides substantiation.

Not being my assignment I can think of one horrid airplane event involving 4 planes in 2001 which took the lives of 2996 folks. Bombs? Boston had 3 deaths.

Your assignment, should you chose to accept it (and I doubt you will) is to support your assertion.

Using numbers from 32,000 to 1700 (Jim2’s number, much lower, yet causing him great levels of fear) of annual gun related deaths. Supporting ‘effective’ might be a challenge unless your choice is to debate the term. ‘Preferred’ might be an even higher challenge so giving you the easy one first.

Her travails aren’t getting worse – Pagliano just generated yet another delay, which Hillary’s team has been doing for a couple of years. November looms, folks. Her being elected w/o ever answering for all the filth and corruption just as S of State would be a disaster – total failure of the Congress and the press to do their jobs.

Imagine the propaganda value to ISIS, al Qaeda, and whoever when a lone gunman swearing allegiance to them can cause the world’s only superpower to take away the weapon used by the lone Muslim radical from the entire Christian population in the US. Are you sh*tting me? That’s exactly what they want and mewling libtard babies want to appease them. I say Christian churches ought to start stockpiling assualt weapons and training their members to use them with raghead silhouette targets.

Charming to the last Springer. One wonders what kind of silhouettes the camel jockeys use for target practice. I don’t expect you to understand why I’m asking as that would require a modicum of self-awareness.

Right. Like the guy is just going to obligingly stand there with his thumb on the button while you go for the day’s high score. But my question was about what kind of silhouette the towelheads practice on, not what a towelhead silhouette looks like. You’re so wrapped up in your heroic fantasies that you can’t even answer the right question, much less grok the point of me asking. Here’s a hint: it has something to do with how terrorists want their targets to respond to attacks. You’re the one playing into it right now.

Argument being the need to protect oneself and family is of the highest sort while at the same time providing absurd data indicating there are so very few ‘event’s’ one might as well set a beer on the table and unlock the doors.

I did miss that specific post, but I’m generally familiar with the statistics.

Argument being the need to protect oneself and family is of the highest sort while at the same time providing absurd data indicating there are so very few ‘event’s’ one might as well set a beer on the table and unlock the doors.

Yes, I thought we were on the same page — it’s silly to be adamant about protecting oneself against such a small risk. At the same time, I lock the doors at night and set the alarm … just in case. Folks who’d like to keep a loaded 12 gauge by the bedstand for just that much more peace of mind … fine. A civilianized assault rifle or semiautomatic handgun? Not necessary unless you’re afraid of being targeted by 49 burglars/rapists/terrorists all on the same night.

As I see it, the main reason to own such weapons as a law-abiding citizen is because they’re cool and fun to shoot. I don’t disagree. I just don’t buy the self-protection angle for a second. For hunting, non-repeating long arms are totally adequate. So again, it’s pretty much down to fun factor.

From the article:
…
According to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center database, a total of 4,892 refugees have arrived since 2002. Police say crime is a chronic problem in the resettlement enclaves. The city currently fields 9-1-1 calls in 42 different languages. Harpole says that Amarillo’s school system is particularly vulnerable. More than 15 languages are spoken in the Amarillo school system, and when you include the different dialects, the number balloons to 75, according to Harpole’s testimony before the state Legislature.
…
They call that Walmart “SomaliMart.” Companies, such as Swift Meats and Tyson brought these people in. Amarillo did not want them, and they have been a huge problem and expense to the taxpayers. One friend told me, “They did not know how to wipe their butts, or that they had to. They didn’t know about basic cleanliness, such as bathing and toilets, and they were supposed to attend social classes to learn about living in America.” The official word from the government was that they were filling jobs “not wanted by Americans.” Not true, according to my friends, and many citizens lost jobs and benefits in Amarillo and several surrounding panhandle towns.
…
Not every immigrant or refugee is, or will be a problem. However, how can we know? How can anyone know? There are two huge issues at play here. One obviously is the safety of the area residents. Crime has risen exponentially since the influx of immigrants has been forced on the community, and this is just one of dozens across the nation.
The other is the expense. What does the increased law enforcement cost? What of the cost to building more schools and dealing with the related languages?
…http://www.madisonscpc.com/?p=28508

South Dakota has a very low unemployment rate. And people there work for peanuts. Always have. In the 1970s I knew guys who dropped out of college to become butchers at meat packing plants because no college job paid as well. Now they move in refugees.

Cr00ked Hillary email travails get worse. Her IT guy, Pagliano, took the fifth (fifth amendment; prohibition against self-incrimination) AGAIN. This time it’s over an investigation into whether Clinton used the private email server to avoid submitting to public disclosure laws and whether she ordered that it be wiped clean. More at link:

He was deposed as part of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking Clinton emails and other records. A federal judge granted discovery, in turn allowing the depositions, which is highly unusual in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The judge cited “reasonable suspicion” Clinton and her aides were trying to avoid federal records law.

Following the attack on a nightclub in Orlando last Sunday, Trump called on the NRA to schedule a meeting to discuss gun-control measures, specifically barring people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms. The NRA agreed to meet, concurring with the presumptive Republican nominee that terrorists should not have guns.

This is a power play. Trump will be able to say “Look, I’m not even president yet and I’m making great deals for the country. Hillary sat on her hands in the meantime. Believe me.”

“Ever heard of politics? Think the NRA would take Clinton’s call? And if so, would they ‘agree’ to allow a modification to gun laws and give credit to a (yipes) democrat?”

Last I checked there were over 750,000 pages of federal laws and regulations. Those should have fixed just about everything by now if laws and regulations actually fixed things.

There was a law banning “assault weapons” that was allowed to lapse because it was not only ineffective, it increased the number of weapons capable of doing what the law was trying to ban. The CDC study required by the Obama administration discovered the same thing. States have created gun laws tougher than what dems want now, with the same result. What is really needed is fewer laws and regulations and realistic enforcement of laws worth keeping. I am sure the NRA would take Clinton’s call and offer her the same advice they have given every politician, stick to the constitution.

Capt.,
Thanks as always. If I’ve come across in any way as suggesting we ‘ban’ assault weapons (isn’t that any weapon used for an assault) then I communicate worse than I thought. It’s the capability I’m trying to express as being the issue. As I stated before, we don’t have bazookas, tanks, or nukes so ‘we the people’ could never take on ‘the government’ realistically anyway. And we all are aware of this.

So ‘sticking to the constitution’ is a matter of what ‘we the people’ allow. We allow the Patriot act. We allow limitations on weaponry. We cannot yell the word ‘fire’ in a crowded room if there is no fire w/o being responsible for criminal issues. The reasoning behind our acceptance is to reduce the likelyhood of harm being done to others.

If high capacity munitions were simply not available then it would be less likely (not eliminate) having this kind of mass killing. ‘We the people’ draw an arbitrary line not demanding higher level weaponry (bazooka, tank, nuke) so why is the line acceptable where it is now?

It’s an argument of what ‘we the people’ are willing to accept. No more, no less.

How would enforcement of existing laws have stopped Orlando? A reduced capability weapon would have given the other patrons a chance to run or fight back.

You are laboring under several misconceptions when it comes to firearms and the Constitution.

“we don’t have bazookas, tanks, or nukes so ‘we the people’ could never take on ‘the government’ realistically anyway.”

Totally irrelevant. What makes you think that an armed insurrection would take the form of citizens massing in the streets and then assaulting military units or fortifications? Ever heard of the concept of a “force in being”? That is what an armed citizenry is. There is a reason that the most sought after billets in the US Army are light infantry. Because in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, to have control you have to have troops on the ground. Whether humping 8,000 ft ridgelines or going door to door in urban areas. The concept applies almost everywhere. Why do you think there are places in Afghanistan that the Army has conceded to the Taliban? The Korangal valley for one? Because the villagers have tanks and heavy artillery?

“high capacity munitions ” – huh? A shotgun shell might classify as a high capacity munition, (excepting a slug shell). A 5.56mm round? Single projectile per cartridge. Another “term” I hear frequently is “high caliber” weapon. Being former Navy, I’d say the 5″ gun on an Areleigh Burke class destroyer (the star of the TV show “The Last Ship) is a high caliber weapon. Even the 3″/70 would qualify. 40mm, 25mm, 20mm are all medium caliber. 5.56mm and 7.62mm are small caliber. That’s why they call them “small arms”.

“If … simply not available then it would be less likely (not eliminate) having this kind of mass killing.” Says who? The AR15 has been available to the public since the late 60’s. Yet killings involving rifles (or any type) are somewhere around 6% of firearm related homicides. The simple point is that the vast majority of US gun owners do not break the law nor are a risk for going out and shooting people. But even if your premise had merit, your proposed solution doesn’t. Reduce the allowed magazine capacity and all you do is make the nut case carry more magazines. You think he’ll tire more quickly if carrying a little extra weight? (And keep in mind that most of the weight is in the cartridges, not the mags themselves.

“A reduced capability weapon would have given the other patrons a chance to run or fight back.” I’ll suggest we can include psychology to the fields you have serious misconceptions about. There are a few people. Very few, who will run toward the sound danger. They tend to wear uniforms. The vast majority of people will do what both common sense and instinct tell them – run away. Had Mateen’s weapon been limited to 10 round magazines, the difference in number of victims might have been a half dozen or so. Small comfort to the rest.

Indeed. In some cases. And not in others. But these are according to state, not federal law. So I’ll give myself two pinocchios for incomplete information, and will give you the same.

“A few states, such as New York and California, have provisions in their state laws that prohibit ownership of Title II weapons and devices. Most states allow legal ownership if the owner has complied with the federal registration and taxation requirements. A few states only allow possession of NFA firearms on the ATF Curios and Relics List, again only if the owner has complied with all federal requirements.

w/r/t: “Had Mateen’s weapon been limited to 10 round magazines, the difference in number of victims might have been a half dozen or so. Small comfort to the rest.” Speculative as to the number, and even so to them and theirs it matters. But I appreciate the support.

“Jackson was a member in the NRA Board of Directors. However somewhat contrary to this position, he has stated that he feels assault weapons should be reserved for military and police use and that he is against high capacity magazines for those not in military or law enforcement.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaquin_Jackson

Last sentence:
Fortunately, the fate of the economy doesn’t depend much on who’s sitting in the White House.

*****

Some people have the mistaken notion that business is set up to hire workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Workers are a byproduct of capital investment. Businesses are set up for one goal: to make a profit. It’s then up to the shareholders to decide whether or not to take the profits in dividends or reinvest the profits for further capitalization of the business.